Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

POLYTECHNICS

10.5 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about polytechnics.
I have now completed my review of the provisional list of polytechnics which was published in the White Paper "A Plan for Polytechnics and Other Colleges". This review was conducted in the light of the views expressed by regional advisory councils for further education, regional economic planning councils, local education authorities and other bodies.
I propose to confirm the provisional list of 28 polytechnics in England and Wales. I am also inviting the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Local Education Authorities to submit a scheme for a polytechnic formed from the North Staffordshire and Staffordshire Colleges of Technology. I accept the need for an additional polytechnic in the North-Western Region, to be located in Northern Lancashire, but shall defer a decision on its exact location and scope until work is further advanced on the proposed new town in the area of Preston.
I have been unable to agree to proposals which I have received for additional polytechnics in a number of other parts of the country. I have had to weigh the arguments in support of particular applications against the general need to concentrate the future development of full-time higher education within the further education system in a limited number of major institutions and specialist centres. This is essential if we are to use the available resources to the best advantage, and I am satisfied that the 30 polytechnics I am proposing will meet

the foreseeable need while providing a reasonable geographical balance.
I have sent invitations to the selected authorities asking them now to submit detailed schemes. I am also giving them guidance on the points on which I will wish to be satisfied before actually designating a polytechnic, including guidance on the government and academic organisation which I regard as appropriate for the polytechnics as major institutions of higher education.

Sir E. Boyle: As the Secretary of State knows, we on this side have always recognised that it is right to concentrate costly resources in fewer centres and to designate a limited number of polytechnics as the main centres for the future development of full-time higher education outside the universities.
May I, however, put four questions to the right hon. Gentleman? First, can he give an undertaking to the House that he will feel his way cautiously over the rundown of higher education in colleges other than polytechnics? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is very strong feeling about this in a number of areas. Secondly, will the Secretary of State assure the House that in pursuing this matter he will attach great importance to the part-time student as well as to the full-time student? We on this side realise the importance of full-time and part-time students working side by side.
Thirdly, can the right hon. Gentleman say something especially about the North-East in view of the anxiety caused by what we still think of as the unhappy decision to turn down the proposal for a new technological university in the North-East?
Last but by no means least, will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more in amplification of his last sentence about the government of the polytechnics and their academic organisation? Does this mean, as we on this side much hope, that the right hon. Gentleman will encourage student and staff consultation? Can he also say something about the representation of teachers on the governing bodies of polytechnics? Would he agree about the importance of the whole of local authority organisation, town clerks no less than the education service, attributing a proper sense of importance to these major institutions?

Mr. Crosland: The right hon. Gentleman has asked a large number of questions which I will try to answer in the order in which he asked them. I am grateful for his opening remarks expressing general sympathy with the policy of concentration in this sector.
In reply to the first of the right hon. Gentleman's four questions, yes, we shall certainly feel our way cautiously over the question of higher education in centres other than polytechnics. We have made it clear that we do not want any precipitate rundown in that respect. Secondly, yes, we attach great importance to the part-time student. We have made this clear in the White Paper and in everything we have said on the subject.
Thirdly, as to the North-East, the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have confirmed polytechnics in Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough. I think that this gives the North-East a proper and reasonable representation.
Lastly, on the Government and academic organisation, we certainly want teachers to be represented on the governing body. We have made this very explicit in our notes of guidance, and indeed have suggested that normally five should probably be the minimum number. I would wholly endorse the right hon. Gentleman's last statement about the general importance attached to these matters.

Mr. Lubbock: Could the Secretary of State say anything about the position of Sir John Cass College which, as he knows, is causing very great anxiety to both staff and students? Can he say whether the Treasury would make available additional funds to the University Grants Committee if any other institutions are transferred across the university boundary?

Mr. Crosland: I think that, in general, it is very unlikely that we shall see any institutions crossing the boundary in the sense of becoming either new universities or substantial new parts of an existing university. Therefore, I do not think that that is a serious possibility for Sir John Cass. I know the history of the college very well. I cannot say anything more about Sir John Cass at the moment, because no doubt it may have a part to play in the plans which the local education

authority will submit. We have suggested that the L.E.A. might submit plans for five polytechnics. Perhaps Sir John Cass will have a part to play in those plans. I cannot go further than that until we have the plans from the L.E.A.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will cause great disappointment in Hull and Humberside generally? Can he say whether this is a final list and whether colleges will be able to apply for admission to polytechnic status as areas develop? What will happen in the rundown of classes? Can my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that there will be no cut-back in advanced classes or the prevention of provision of further advanced classes for students?

Mr. Crosland: I am well aware of the strong feelings felt on Humberside, which, I must add, includes Grimsby as well as Hull. I have made it clear to the Kingston-upon-Hull authority that I shall be prepared to review the question of establishing a polytechnic in the Humberside area in the event of major developments resulting in substantial changes in the present position. On my hon. Friend's latter point about the continued provision for advanced courses in colleges not designated as polytechnics, I hope that he will think that in the White Paper and other statements we have shown that we shall adopt a flexible and sensible attitude.

Mr. G. Campbell: As the Minister concerned with these matters in Scotland is here, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any decisions are to be taken or changes made concerning Scotland, or whether a statement is to be made?

Mr. Crosland: That is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland, I am glad to say.

Miss Quennell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether in selecting the 30 polytechnics he has been able to adhere to the suggestion in the White Paper that an hour's travelling time would be reasonable for students? Secondly, can he say whether grants for additional travelling time in respect of movement to and from the 30 centres will be available? Thirdly, can he say anything about the Bournemouth area?

Mr. Crosland: Bournemouth is one of the areas where proposals were submitted, and I had to decide, reluctantly, weighing them against the general necessity for some concentration, that we could not accept them. On the question of travelling time and geographical coverage as a whole, if the hon. Lady were to plot the 30 centres on a map, I think that she would find that we have a very fair geographical coverage. There is no large conurbation which will not have a polytechnic. This is always naturally a matter of balance between the principle of concentration, on the one hand, and the need to avoid too much travelling, on the other. I believe that we have drawn a reasonable balance. [Interruption.] As to Humberside, to which I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referring again, we must not confuse Humberside as it is today with Humberside as it might possibly be in a few years' time under the enlightened efforts of a Labour Government.

Dr. Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Plymouth will be extremely grateful to be included in this list, but will he give consideration to having far greater co-operation between Government Departments and polytechnics and particularly the need for maritime studies and the co-operation of the National Environment Research Council and other Service establishments in the vicinity?

Mr. Crosland: I will certainly bear that very much in mind. However, if my hon. Friend has any particular point on co-operation which is troubling him or which he thinks we should consider, I should be much obliged if he would let me know about it.

Sir E. Boyle: In view of the importance of this matter both in general and in terms of particular institutions to which hon. Members have referred, we shall seek an early opportunity to debate the whole subject of higher education.

PRICES AND INCOMES ACT 1966 (AMENDMENT)

10.16 a.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Prices and Incomes Board to publish with each report a list of the consultants employed and the fees paid to them.
The National Board for Prices and Incomes undoubtedly plays a very important part in economic decision taking. We have perhaps a most dramatic instance of this in the fact that recently it has been required to report on the findings of the wages council for the retail drapery trade and on the findings of the Agricultural Wages Board. We also have the evidence of politically significant price increases being referred to the Board—for example, the increase in the price of newsprint and the recent question of changes in mortgage rates.
It has always been argued that the reports of the Board would stand on their own merits, and would convince on their own merits that there would be contained in the prices and incomes legislation no sanctions enforcing the findings of the Board. That view has generally been welcomed. But I think that possibly in this atmosphere Mr. Aubrey Jones has sought to present himself as a kind of patron saint of the economy and of the national interest, standing above what he once described in a television interview as "robber barons"—this in the presence of Lord Robens and Mr. Frank Cousins. It is not for me to comment on that.
However, more recently the House has had the advantage of knowing something more about the workings of the Board. From the Minutes of Evidence taken for the Eighth Report of the Estimates Committee we learn a great deal more about the operations of the Board which, I suggest, amply sustains the case for the Bill which I am seeking leave to introduce. In the Minutes of Evidence it was made quite clear that the Board was being obliged to accept such a wide range of tasks that it could not conceivably carry them out with the 128 people currently employed by the Board which, according to the evidence submitted by


Mr. Jarratt, includes everybody—in his words, "including the doorman".
The balance of effort has been made up by the widespread employment of consultants, particularly financial consultants.
I think that I can do no better than to quote very briefly from the evidence which was given by Mr. Jarratt, the Secretary of the Board. He said that quite early in the career of the Board:
We had immediately to embark on cost enquiries in two industries for which we had to employ outside accountants. Something like 40 per cent. of our current expenditure on outside professional services is on account of accountants.
He later said:
We could not hope, on the basis of civil service salaries or the career structure of the Board to attract the type of accountants which this firm has.
What is this firm? No one knows. We are never told in this House. These reports are based substantially on evidence produced by this firm of accountants, but the House of Commons does not know which firm it is, and neither does the public. We may have fairly shrewd ideas about who these accountants are, but it is left to our own devices. We are not told as of right, and the Bill that I seek leave to introduce would ensure just that.
It goes far beyond this favoured firm. In subsequent evidence Mr. Jarratt said:
We have a very full record of 200 consultancy firms, their field experience and so on.
The reason why this House should be particularly interested in the extent to which the reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes lean on these outside bodies is because the disclosure that the Government require by Mr. Aubrey Jones is far greater, potentially, than that which could be required by an inspector of taxes or under existing company legislation. One question that we might ask ourselves is: are any of these consultants not British consultants but overseas consultants?
We do not have to reflect on the evidence before the Estimates Committee. We can even turn to Report No. 26 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes dealing with Prices of Standard Newsprint. Paragraph 38 states clearly:

From the advice we have received from a leading firm of American consultants with wide experience of the pulp and paper industry …".
We ought to require that with each report submitted by Mr. Aubrey Jones we should have some idea of who has been employed to provide so much of the field work and the evidence on which the conclusions are inevitably based, because the evidence often points to the conclusions. Secondly, and even more important, we ought to know what it costs. That will give us some idea of the degree of thoroughness with which a report has been prepared. How much we would like to know what it cost to produce the report on the wages in the retail drapery industry, for example. It would give us some idea, and we would know what valuation to place upon the report's judgment, which was sought to be set alongside of that of a wages council.
The Board is an innovation, seeking in some sense to establish one of these outside bodies purporting to have very considerable influence upon Governments and upon other bodies taking part in economic decision making. For this reason possibly more than any other, we should be very wary of how these bodies proceed. The National Board is a vitally important body, and no one reflecting upon Part II of the Prices and Incomes Act should have any doubt about that.
Therefore, Parliament should know who are the chosen consultants behind Mr. Aubrey Jones and what they are paid. Parliament should know. It is the least that we owe to our constituents and to those who are exposed to the inquests commissioned by the Board.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Ray Mawby, Mr. Terence L. Higgins, and Mr. John Nott.

PRICES AND INCOMES ACT 1966 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to require the Prices and Incomes Board to publish with each report a list of the consultants employed and the fees paid to them, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th April and to be printed. [Bill 217.]

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH SETTLEMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.24 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert Bowden): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Government to continue to cooperate financially with other Commonwealth Governments and organisations in schemes designed to facilitate emigration to and settlement in Commonwealth countries. The Secretary of State has been empowered, under earlier Acts, to enter into financial agreements subject to a limit of an annual expenditure by Her Majesty's Government of £1·5 million. The provisions in the Acts enabling the Secretary of State to make these financial agreements lapse on 31st May, 1967.
It has long been our belief that the flow of British migrants to other countries of the Commonwealth brings benefits to all concerned and is a source of great strength and unity to the Commonwealth as a whole. Of the 860,000 British migrants who left these shores to settle overseas during the years 1962 to 1965, nearly two-thirds—or over 550,000—found new homes in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. During that same period, British immigrants into those three countries represented more than one-third of the total immigration. The British Government believe that this steady influx helps to strengthen the bonds between our family of nations.
We know that Commonwealth countries remain anxious to attract British settlers who, in addition to their British blood, bring with them a diversity of arts and skills to enhance the economic, social and cultural life of their countries. The Australian Government continue to attach very great important to Britain's participation in the Assisted Passage Scheme for British migrants, Canada's immigration policy results in the greater proportion of her migrants coming from Britain. As for New Zealand, in 1965–66, of the 35,000 immigrants admitted,

almost half came from the United Kingdom.
The scale of British financial help for migration has varied over the past 45 years according to economic and social conditions in this country and the receiving countries, and is now limited to a contribution to the United Kingdom-Australian Assisted Passage Scheme, and in addition to support for certain voluntary societies dealing with child migration, the precise terms of this assistance being controlled by the legislation presently under consideration.
The Assisted Passage Scheme to Australia provides subsidised passages for British immigrants from the United Kingdom. The British migrants selected by the Australian Government pay £10 towards their fare in the case of adults, and nothing at all if they are under the age of 19. During the period 1962–65 over 214,000 assisted immigrants have taken advantage of this scheme to leave the United Kingdom and make a new home in Australia. There has been general praise for the efficient way in which the Australian authorities conduct this scheme, which calls for complex administrative arrangements to cover the selection of the migrants and their journey to Australia, and to ensure that they are settled into their new surroundings with the minimum difficulty and delay. Inevitably there are some failures, cases where intending settlers find that they are not ready for this complete change in their way of life, but it is an undeniable fact that the majority of immigrants settle down very happily in their new homes.
The bulk of the cost of this scheme, amounting annually to about £8 million, is borne by the Australian Government. The British Government for their part contribute £150,000 which could really be regarded as a token payment. Nevertheless, this token payment is highly regarded by the Australian Government who see in it the continued interest of this country in the infusion of people of British stock into the Australian social and economic scene and in the maintaining of the close links between Britain and Australia. It is true that this relatively modest financial contribution can have little practical effect on the numbers emigrating, but we are very much aware of the political importance


which the Australian Government attach to the assisted passage scheme. We also recognise and value the way in which the Australian Government have been willing to meet our wishes that they should accept as immigrants a fair cross-section of our population, and not seek to recruit only those who are highly skilled and possess professional qualifications.
In addition to this assisted passage scheme, we have agreements, under the Commonwealth Settlement Act, with four voluntary societies in this country, which make arrangements for the migration of children to Australia and for their care and training when they have arrived and settled down there. Over the 45 years during which this policy of helping with child migration, largely by financial contribution, has been followed, circumstances have changed, and improved economic and social conditions in this country as a whole are reflected in the fact that far fewer children are now being sent overseas under child migration schemes than in the past. In fact, none are now going alone, every child being accompanied by one parent.
Of the four societies with which the Government currently have agreements under the Act, the Fairbridge Society is by far the most active and the one with which Her Majesty's Government have most dealings.
The British Government contribute £4 outfit allowance per child and £1 a week towards the maintenance of each child until the age of 16 as long as the child is in the care of the society, and on condition that the Australian State Government also contribute. On the Australian side, the Commonwealth Government pay to the societies an £8 outfit allowance per child, together with a 16s. a week maintenance allowance and the normal family allowance, while the Australian State Governments contribute a maintenance allowance according to varying rates. Children emigrating under this scheme go to one of the Fairbridge Homes in Australia where parents can visit them as frequently and as regularly as they wish. Expenditure under the agreements with the four societies which we assist under the Act is currently running at about £10,000 a year.
The other societies have similar schemes. The aim of all these schemes is not to separate the child permanently from the parent, but rather to ensure that, when circumstances permit, the family can be reunited and can then make a home together.
Emigration clearly has played a decisive part in the development of the Commonwealth in the past. It is less easy to discern, perhaps, the extent of its rôle in the years ahead. In introducing this Bill, the Government once more reaffirm the significance which they attach to the subject, and I am sure that the whole House would agree that the Government should continue their present co-operation with other Commonwealth Governments in the form and spirit I have outlined. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

10.34 a.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very clear explanation of the Bill which he has given, and may I say that his recent journey to Australia and New Zealand has given to his speech an even greater authority than his speeches always command.
Like him, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) said when he introduced the Bill in 1962, I and most of my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome a steady flow of emigrants, but we recognise that it is possible that the flow of emigrants from this country may get out of balance from time to time. It is that which is the basis of the disquiet which the right hon. Gentleman will wholly understand and which we expressed two months ago in the debate on the brain drain. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) pointed out on that occasion, if too great a vacuum of skilled manpower were created in this country, it would attract to this country men and women from a number of less developed countries whom those countries can ill afford to lose.
Were it not for that fact, which no one who has visited any of the less developed countries can disregard, I should be the more inclined to be wholly single-minded in my encouragement of migration from this country, especially to countries of the Commonwealth.
We believe that the organisation which we call the State exists not for its own good but for the good of the individuals within it. Certainly it has never been the belief of my party that the State should do for individuals what those individuals can as well or better do for themselves. As we conceive it and as we are frequently reminded in the House in many other contexts, the function of the State is to create conditions in which each individual can realise his full potential and make the most of his natural ability.
If that is our conviction, I find it very difficult to understand why we should place limitations, even mentally, on the free movement of individuals from this country to another. I imagine and hope that we are unlikely ever to erect barriers to keep in Britain those who feel that their future lies elsewhere.
It is certainly true that the collective view which Parliament expresses from time to time, whether that view in comparatively restrictive or relatively liberal can have an influence on countless individual decisions which will be taken in the years ahead. I hope that our view on this matter will become increasingly liberal, because I believe that it is in the liberal direction and not by a philosophy of restriction that this country can continue to exercise its most decisive influence in the years to come.
It is for these reasons that I welcome the Bill, although I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else would claim, any more than it was claimed on the occasion of the introduction of the 1962 Bill, that it is a major step towards the further encouragement of migration to the Commonwealth.
As the right hon. Gentleman made plain, the lion's share of the money which is expended annually under the authority of these Acts has for many years found its way into the assisted passage schemes. However admirable those may be—and I concur entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman said about them—the money expended through them does not add to the total of migrants. It is a little unrealistic that we should continue every five years to give Her Majesty's Ministers authority to spend up to £1,500,000 annually when the average

for recent years under both Conservative and Socialist Administrations has been around £160,000.
For reasons which I have already given I am not anxious, on these grounds, to reject or even amend the Bill. What I am anxious to see, as soon as the Government feel free to return to their first flush of financial liberality, is that fuller use should be made of the powers that we are about to give them in this legislation.
In the debates of 1962, the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) pressed for fuller statistics to assist the Overseas Migration Board in its work. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who replied for the Government on that occasion, explained that the Board's work would be made easier by the sample survey.
I am pleased to find that in the Report published at the end of 1965, Cmnd. 2861, the Board acknowledged that the sample survey represented a considerable improvement on the statistics hitherto available. The Board still believed, however, in paragraph 2,
that nothing short of a complete count of migrants will provide fully satisfactory statistics
and it suggested that the sampling system should be re-examined in two or three years' time—that is, at the end of this or next year.
We have the right to ask the Government, particularly in the light of the views expressed by a prominent member of the present Government, for a firm undertaking not only that that examination will be carried out at the end of this or next year, but that, if the Board still thinks it desirable, some way of providing fuller statistics will then be introduced.
I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in welcoming the Bill. I hope that they will also join me in pressing the Government as soon as practicable to make as full use of it as possible. The last table in the White Paper, Cmnd. 2861, seems to me to give us all a great deal of food for thought. That is the table which relates to the future total population of the United Kingdom. On those estimates, the 1964


population of 54 million will apparently, at the turn of the century, be very nearly 75 million. Of that 75 million, I hope very much that I shall still be one. If I am one, however, I wonder how it will be possible to move around, particularly if, as is likely, most of the 20 million additional people invest in a motor car.
More seriously, I ask the Secretary of State whether it is his opinion that it will be in Britain or whether it will be scattered throughout the Commonwealth, with its vast opportunities and its continuing need of men and women, that a large proportion of that future 75 million population will have the fullest opportunity to go ahead.
I have no doubt that a great many of that population will continue to go—and I believe that we should encourage them to go—as our countrymen have gone for hundreds of years past, to the four corners of the world. I hope that we shall gradually come to see more clearly that this emigration is not only for their own benefit and that we shall consequently do more than we do now to ease their start in new surroundings.
I hope that we can also have the vision to understand that in a world which is becoming increasingly interdependent, the massive intermingling of human beings is the surest guarantee of benefit not only to individuals but to countries as well, and also, I believe, to humanity as a whole. I therefore have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

10.43 a.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I, too, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), welcome what the Secretary of State has said in his opening remarks, but I also regret that such a small amount of the money which has been voted by Parliament has been used. This was referred to at considerable length in the debate in 1962. I understand from the Secretary of State that 214,000 people have been assisted—out of a total of over 550,000 who, in five years, have gone to Australia, Canada and New Zealand. It is a small step at least in the right direction.
I also welcome what the Secretary of State has said about no child going without one parent. In past years it has been a bit tough that children of a

comparatively young age have gone out on their own to find a comparatively new life in Australia. This has, perhaps, added to the toughness of that great continent, but it is more civilised that children should now be accompanied by at least one parent.
It is difficult to decide what makes people wish to emigrate. In my opinion, money for the passage hardly comes into it. It depends on many considerations, one of which may be the political complexion of the Government in this country. It may be unemployment here or a wish to get different employment overseas. Questions of housing, the education of children, the future of those children and of the children's children in the decades to come, and how the benefits of the Welfare State here compare with what is available overseas—all these influences are very different from the great pioneering spirit of past decades.
I accept that Australia has to commit vast capital expenditure in the way of housing and the well-being of her immigrants, but she is getting, as are the other Dominions in a much lesser way, the benefit of very considerable expenditure in this country in the education, for example, that we in the United Kingdom have given to those immigrants. Most of those immigrants now go to towns whereas in the old days they went much more often to the outback, to that great, vast territory where farms are calculated in square miles rather than in acres.
We do not want to lose our best people, but we must not take up a narrow nationalistic outlook. What is wanted is that the Western way of life in freedom should endure against all the possibilities of autocratic Communism and the quite different kind of faith which is paramount in the territory north of Australia.
I particularly hope, naturally, that the British way of life will find a reflection in Australia—it certainly does today—but it would be wrong to expect Australia to copy entirely the ways of life of Britain any more than her tastes can be considered to be the same as British market tastes. This is something which so often our exporters tend to forget.
The potentialities of Australia are indeed vast. It may be that while droughts and fires continue—and how much one regrets the great fire that ravaged


Tasmania not long ago—once we can find an economic way of turning salt water into fresh, that vast heart of Australia will be opened up to many more people. She has vast mineral and agricultural wealth. She has a lovely climate and is a very virile country. Indeed, I often think that the basic strength of Britain, forgetting all the frills, fashions and snobbery of the past, finds a very strong root now in Australia.
It is not, however, easy for some of the older people who emigrate to acclimatise themselves to the Australian scene or to find new jobs. I remember coming across some of my ex-constituents in a hostel in one of the housing camps at Adelaide a few years ago. They must learn new skills and become accustomed to new techniques and a new outlook, and occasionally even to a new type of language. That obviously takes a little time.
The States of the Commonwealth of Australia vary very much, and everything depends on whether the immigrant lands in Perth, with its very attractive climate, almost an island divided from the rest of Australia by a vast desert, yet with a hinterland of great mineral and iron ore wealth; in Adelaide, beautifully laid out, and the driest State of the driest continent, yet with the sprinklers going in every garden and field—more so than in the gardens of my constituency; or, as the bulk do, the immigrant goes to Melbourne or Sydney, or, at the end of the line, to Brisbane, lying on the banks of a great meandering river, and with a lovely tropical climate. There is vast scope for anyone who goes to Australia, which is already almost a little America; if it has more fresh water we may find that the "little" of that phrase is altogether erased.
I am glad that the Secretary of State said that a fair cross-section should be received by Australia, and I believe that that applies not only to the young but to an all-age group. The group will be much happier if they can go out as father and son, and even grandchildren, to that country, where the average age is much lower than it is here. If they can take their friends with them, as has happened in a number of cases, they will be happier still.
In the 1962 debate, suggestions were made that help might be given over housing. I accept that with so many houses needed in this country it is not easy for Her Majesty's Government to offer that help, except possibly on a completely economic basis of investment. Perhaps the Secretary of State could refer to that when he winds up. The Dutch and the Italians have helped, and I do not see why we should not also do so.
Could the Secretary of State also say exactly what countries have benefited from the small expenditure of £160,000 in the past year? Is it not possible for the airlines to produce proper records? I have just been in the Far East, and everywhere I went I had to fill up a form. It took only about one-and-a-half to two minutes, and I cannot see why the airlines going to and from Australia should not be asked to produce such a form to be filled up by their passengers.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will also say what the migration in this direction has been, both of those who had tried to emigrate permanently to the Dominions and those of the next generation who have decided to return to the old country. If we are to consider migration it is important that we should know those facts.
I have one further suggestion. When I had the privilege of going to all the States in Australia and to New Zealand in 1963 I found that a number of university places were not filled—although the universities of the great cities like Sydney and Melbourne are over-full, and there is a waiting list. In this country we have a number of would-be undergraduates who are on the margin of passing into our universities and cannot get a place. Would it not be possible to use some of the money voted by Parliament to allow those young men and women to take up vacancies in universities in Australia and New Zealand? I believe that that would be very good for all three countries.
If the Commonwealth is to mean anything we must co-operate on the functional side. The Bill is a small step to that end. We are only a junior partner in the assisted passages schemes but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington said, we are apt to be overpopulated and will become more so.
The decision to emigrate must remain very personal. But if the wish of this


country to enter the Common Market of Europe should be denied, I believe that the English-speaking world will have to come together even more than it is at present, and this small Bill will help in a very small way to that end.

10.56 a.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: As I had the privilege of visiting Australia once again early this year, I support everything my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has just said about the opportunities there. I am not sure whether when talking about Australia he had in mind that I was born in Canada, and so was suggesting in a sense that a word might be said on behalf of the Canadians. Anybody who has watched what has been happening in Canada over a number of years cannot fail to have been impressed with the great opportunities there just as there are in Australia.
I am rather sad that so many of those opportunities are going to people who are not of British stock. I have seen many people going to those countries and living a full and prosperous life, and I am fully convinced that migration is good not only for them but also for the receiving country and for the United Kingdom. That was why I was particularly pleased that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs said that he felt that migration was a source of great strength. A clear statement like that on behalf of Her Majesty's Government is very welcome.
I was not so pleased when he went on to say that what was done under the Bill was now limited to certain things. I should like him to have read with a little more care the first page of the rather attenuated document we are given, headed "Commonwealth Settlement Bill", where it is seen that we are giving the Government an opportunity "to cooperate in … schemes." I hope that he will direct his attention to schemes which will enable him to increase the amount of money which he can spend out of the £1½ million to be spent in each year that we shall vote him today.
As I am a member of the Council of the Fairbridge Society, I thank him on behalf of those who work so hard to achieve its results for what he was good enough to say about its work. That will

be greatly appreciated by a number of people.
When the Secretary of State set out the limitations, I wondered whether there are not certain practical things to which he might direct his attention to achieve the object we unanimously support today. Some have already been mentioned. The first is the question of statistics, which was raised in the last debate in 1962, and I remember Lord Alport, as he now is, referring to them in the debate in 1957. It is about time something was done to produce the necessary statistics. That would be one way in which a little of this money might well be spent.
My second suggestion has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). He said that there would be 75 million people in this country at the turn of the century. We know that already we are one of the most heavily populated countries in the world. There are few countries which have a population of more than 570 people to the square mile, as we have. We know the difficulty of getting about on the roads today, and we know, too, that unless something drastic is done it will become more and more difficult as the years go by.
I think that it would be profitable for the Commonwealth Secretary to cooperate with some of his right hon. Friends to see whether he can work out a scheme which would define the optimum population for the United Kingdom. He would then be able to consider how he could dovetail migration in with that figure, and perhaps take more active steps with regard to Commonwealth settlement.
My next point is about a balanced scheme of migration. I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that a scheme has been arrived at with regard to those who are going to Australia. I would like him to look a little more keenly into the arrangements being made for balanced migration to see whether he can spend some of his money on encouraging older members of families to go with the young migrants. If some of the older people, who are kept at home largely because of their economic circumstances, were able to go into those communities they would probably live a happier life with their families and they


would make a great contribution to the receiving country as well.
My fourth suggestion is concerned with the amount of money which we ate able to invest abroad. It is almost a year since the President of the Board of Trade went to Ottawa and made a speech in which he said:
Investments have been built up again to an impressive total of £1,100 million.
If somebody wants to invest in the Commonwealth he does not get very much encouragement from the Government, and I think it is something of a dilemma to find the President of the Board of Trade saying how much he welcomes that investment and how proud he is that once again it is £1,100 million, when at the same time people are not given encouragement to go on investing. At the same time if we invest money, it seems right to send men and management with the money so that we have a balanced investment which will bring them greater opportunities and give us a good return over a long period.
In 1913 we managed to send 225,000 people to the Commonwealth, and at that time we were investing 7 per cent. of our net income. In recent years we have never approached anything like 225,000 and we have heard the President of the Board of Trade congratulating us on an investment of about 2 per cent. I think that this is something which the Commonwealth Secretary might consider to see whether there is a way in which he can co-operate in encouraging people to migrate when the money is being invested abroad.
One way in which tremendous successes have been achieved both in Australia and Canada is where whole factories with the workers and equipment have moved, and this again is something which I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider.
The final matter about which I want to say a few words is the subject of universities. This has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree. Some years ago when I heard that the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme was being introduced, in my naive way I thought it meant that we would be able to move people around between the different universities in different parts of the Commonwealth. I then discovered that it operated

only in respect of people from a country which did not have the necesssary facilities for them there. This meant that virtually nobody from this country was able to benefit from the scheme.
There is one Canadian, Colonel Harold Hemming, who, over a number of years, has arranged annually for about 70 students to go from this country to universities in Canada. If an individual can achieve that kind of success, what might the Commonwealth Secretary do if he were to discuss the matter with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see whether it is possible for the vacancies in Australia, to which my hon. Friend referred, and the opportunities which I know are available in Canada, to be taken up so that there is an increase in the number of our students going to Commonwealth universities? I would like to see at least one student going from this country to each of the universities in Canada and in Australia.

Mr. Tilney: And in New Zealand.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Yes, indeed, and in New Zealand. I think that it would be of great benefit not only to the individuals, but would be a great help to the universities if they had somebody from the United Kingdom with whom they could discuss our problems and our way of life.
One of the things which the Fairbridge Society does, and to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer, is to arrange for students to go to the University of Western Australia in Perth. There are schemes afoot for the number to be increased. I think that there are definite openings and possibilities for increased migration of those who are able to take advantage of the vacancies in some universities in the Commonwealth.
At the same time, I think that it would do no harm if, with the assistance perhaps of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Commonwealth Secretary were to make a survey of the position in technical colleges. There are a number of vacancies in parts of the Commonwealth to which people could go and receive apprentice training. This would enable them to contribute richly to the life of the country to which they went and at the same time would enable them to benefit from the training they received.
Those are five specific ways in which I suggest that the Commonwealth Secretary might on another occasion come to the House and say that he was doing much better than spending only £161,000 out of the £1½ million which we are voting him. I welcome the Bill, and I hope that the fullest use will be made of it.

11.8 a.m.

Mr. Bowden: Mr. Bowden rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The right hon. Gentleman requires the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Bowden: I ask for that leave. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) for his comments. With regard to migration generally, I take the view that this is, and always must be, a matter of individual choice. I do not think that it is for the Government to encourage or discourage migration from these shores. On the other hand, I think that we should always bear in mind the loss to this country if, having spent a considerable amount of money on training them, people with high skills and qualifications feel that to make full use of their new skills they should leave these shores and go to some other Commonwealth country. Nevertheless, I reiterate that this must be an individual choice. The Government should neither encourage nor discourage.
When one considers this Bill, I think one should realise that it was 45 years ago that it was first proposed that assistance should be provided by the Government of the day for people who, of their own choice, wished to emigrate from this country and to settle in a Commonwealth country. It is true that during certain periods, for instance at the end of the war, movement was rather more rapid, but during the last five years the amount of money spent under the Act has been restricted to about £160,000 to £161,000.
We seek authority, as previous Governments have done, for the sum of £1½ million because there must be a great deal of flexibility. We can never be sure that we shall not need to increase the sums of money when greater numbers of people wish to emigrate. Although, under the scheme, the Australian Assisted Passage Scheme and the four organisations

which I have mentioned take up the whole of the £160,000, there is nothing to prevent similar schemes from being assisted under the legislation, and the Government would look sympathetically at any such request. Canada, for instance, has her own scheme of a two-year loan to pay the passage of would-be emigrants. New Zealand also assists. But if there should arise schemes rather like the Australian scheme or like the four organisations I have mentioned, we would sympathetically consider in what way they could be helped.
The hon. Member for Wavertree mentioned the question of housing. As the Bill stands we would not be able to assist in housing because it is clearly laid down in a Section of the 1922 Act that the money should be spent on training and the provision of assisted passages, but not in the provision of accommodation and housing. It is true that Australia is the only country which we are assisting at present. But this need not necessarily always be so.
When one of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), was moving a similar Bill, he made it clear, as I have done, that the retaining of a figure greatly in excess of what we are contemplating was important for two reasons: first, presentationally to indicate to Commonwealth countries that we are prepared to assist with these schemes, and, secondly, if new applications are made, to enable us to consider them.
The point was made that emigrants to Australia from this country are spreading into the outback. This is true. I checked on it when I was there. But it is equally true that the tendency earlier was to congregate, naturally, where there was work in the larger towns. But there are indications of, for instance, development in Western Australia and of mining exploitation north of Perth which are extremely important. Since the war, almost half of the emigrants to Australia have gone from this country. I know that the Australians wanted that sort of proportion. I am sure that we do, for the reasons which I gave when I moved the Second Reading.
There has been reference to family emigration. This is a human problem which we have all felt at some time or another. There is no doubt that one


thing which prevents emigrants going from this country to any Commonwealth country is being torn away from the older members of the family. While it is largely a matter for the receiving country to decide whom it receives as emigrants, Australia considers the position sympathetically. But, given the approval of the receiving country and the fact that this must be a question of individual choice within the family, this is something which we should encourage.
The question of British investment abroad hardly arises under the Bill. It is a problem which was raised with me when I was in Australia. It had to be pointed out that the voluntary programme of investment does not apply to the new developing countries. It applies to Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it absolutely clear when it was introduced that this was a temporary Measure. He mentioned the period of two years. I accept that with additional British investment in Commonwealth countries—in the older Commonwealth as well as in the new Commonwealth countries—there is a need for British firms and British emigrants to go out and take part in these new developments.
I agree that this is a small Bill. It is a continuation of what has been done for a very long time. We are taking powers to continue the provision of the same amount of money, £1½ million, clearly with a view to consideration of other schemes and requests which may be made to us from time to time. Over the 45 years that these emigration-assisted schemes have been in existence the figures of actual expenditure have varied considerably. I am sure that the Government will at all times sympathetically consider any new applications.

Mr. Tilney: Would the right hon. Gentleman say something about the universities, which, after all, are a form of training? Therefore, presumably, university places could be subsidised under the Bill.

Mr. Bowden: Under the Act as it stands, assisted passages are available to students who are going to study in the universities provided that their intention

is to settle in the Commonwealth country concerned. That is the existing position.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McBride.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH SETTLEMENT [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period for which the Secretary of State may make contributions under schemes agreed under section 1 of the Empire Settlement Act 1922, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the said Act of 1922.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOAD LINES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.18 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Last spring a conference was called in London by the International Maritime Consultative Organisation, which is a special agency of the United Nations, to study and revise the International Load Lines Convention of 1930. The conference was attended by the representatives of 52 nations, and, in addition, there were eight observers. Both before and during the conference our representatives had the closest consultations with all the shipping interests which might be affected. The conference unanimously approved the new Convention of 1966.
The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to accept and operate the provisions of that Convention. But it has a second purpose. Last summer the country was shocked by three disasters—the "Darlwyne", the best known; the "Prince of Wales"; and the "Quesada"—which involved considerable and tragic loss of life. In each case


the regulations that exist had not been complied with. The courts of inquiry suggested that very much stronger penalties than those in force should in future be imposed as a deterrent. The court of formal investigation to the loss of the "Prince of Wales" said:
The court considers that severer penalties than those permitted by the Merchant Shipping Acts might act as a deterrent to those who tend to flout the Regulations.
That was the view of the court, it is the view of the Government, and, I think, it will also be the view of this House.
The existing penalties are variable. They depend on the excess of passengers carried and so forth and take no account of the state of the weather. We propose that there should be a maximum penalty on summary conviction of £400, but under Clause 25 and Schedule 1 we add a further proviso that in a particularly serious case, on indictment, the penalties could be unlimited. I believe the House and country will support that view. We have inserted that aspect in the Bill because of the urgency of providing deterrence before the summer comes.
I now turn to the main purpose of the Bill and to the Convention. The Convention in one respect provides some relaxation of the existing rules because technical progress has rather by-passed the 1930 Convention. The Convention proposes, and in the Bill we propose, to make regulations to this effect to allow certain types of ship to have a reduced free board. There are several reasons for this. In recent years there has been a great extension of the use of welding in the construction of ships, which is much safer than the use of rivets. Secondly, in place of the old wooden hatches there are steel hatches which do not need wooden wedges and which are watertight. The size and strength of hulls has also been greatly extended.
For these reasons, we think it reasonable to have some relexation of the rules for large ships and, indeed, for tankers, provided they are up to a required standard of subdivision against flooding. A second change which the Convention proposes is that the load line should depend not on tonnage any longer but on the length of the ship. This is technically a much more effective way of deciding where the load line should be.
A third thing which the Convention puts very strongly is a number of measures for the protection of seamen at sea by setting down a minimum height of guard rails, for example, and insisting on protected gangways and laying down the minimum height for the freeboard of a ship to prevent wash-over and to see that she does not ship more than a limited quantity of water.
Another thing the Convention does is to deal with the stowage of deck cargoes and to make regulations to see that cargoes do not become unshipped in a heavy sea and upset the balance of the ship. Fourthly, the Convention proposes to exempt certain classes of ship which operate in sheltered waters, tugs, dredgers and that kind of thing. Fifthly, it greatly increases, sometimes doubles and sometimes quadruples, the penalties which may be imposed for infringement of the regulations which may be established.
Clause 1 applies the Bill to all ships other than ships of war, fishing vessels and pleasure yachts. Fishing vessels are a very special case. For technical reasons to do with the casting of nets and so forth, they are to have rather different provisions from those for ordinary ships. The stability of fishing vessels is being studied at the moment internationally and it is proposed to have special legislation, if necessary, for them.
Clause 2 gives the Board of Trade powers to make load-line rules and surveys. Clauses 3 to 11 contain mainly revised provisions of the 1932 and 1937 Acts. Clauses 18 to 22 deal with the exemptions. Clause 24 deals with deck cargoes. Clause 25 deals with the increased penalties which I have mentioned for passenger ships and Clause 30 provides for regulations to be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment by this House.
On this Bill, which has the complete support of the shipping industry, which to the Government seems sense and which, I understand, may receive the approval of the Opposition, there is no need to go into great detail on Second Reading. We shall be dealing with details in Committee. The Convention will come into force for the United Kingdom, provided the Bill reaches the Statute Book, one year from the date when 15 countries have accepted it, including at


least seven countries with 1 million gross tons or more of shipping.
So far nine countries have accepted, including four, the United States, the Soviet Union, Panama and France, with over 1 million gross tons of shipping. I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage and that the United Kingdom will join those countries and many others so that the Convention can speedily come into force, but we cannot set a date for that in the Bill itself. The provisions of Clause 25 will come into force the moment the Bill reaches the Statute Book. This is a good Bill which is very much wanted by the shipping industry, and I hope that the House will give it a fair wind.

11.28 a.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: As the Minister of State has said, the Bill implements the Convention which was held in London almost exactly a year ago. The Convention was attended by the representatives of no fewer than 60 nations, of which only nine, perhaps a disappointing number, have so far ratified it. Seven more ratifications are needed.
I am therefore glad that the Government are bringing forward the Bill to make it possible for this country, which is the leading maritime nation, to give a lead in this matter. It is possible that many other countries—smaller maritime nations—are hanging back to see what we do. I am advised that it is the desire of the British shipping industry that the new rules should come into effect as soon as possible. On behalf of the Opposition, I therefore welcome the Bill and advise my hon. Friends to help to secure its early passage.
As the Minister of State said, the Bill succeeds the 1932 Act which put into force the 1930 Convention. I have looked up the debates on the 1932 Bill. I see that it was introduced by the then Mr. Hore Belisha when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, although he later became better known for other things. I wish the Minister of State the same good fortune.
There are four good reasons why the 1930 Convention needs bringing up to date. Some of these reasons were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The first point is welding. It is now the habit to weld ships, whereas in 1930 they were

very largely riveted. There is no doubt that good welding adds additional strength to the hull and makes a heavier loading of the ship a safer proposition.
The second big technical advance relates to hatch covers, which have been enormously improved. I am told that the MacGregor type hatch cover is extremely efficient. Therefore, it is fully justified that ships with these hatch covers receive a special bonus under the terms of the Convention. The old type of wooden hatch cover had its faults. Even in very recent years there have been disasters at sea because ships had these old types of covers and they were not, perhaps, fully secured. Hatch covers alone provide a good reason for moving forward.
Thirdly, there is the question of fines. Fines for the overloading of cargo ships need bringing up to date. They are low. I am told that in certain cases it would pay to accept the fine for overloading a ship, because the extra freight earned would be greater than the fine. This is obviously not a desirable state of affairs.
The question of fines in relation to passenger ships is different. These provisions will come into force at a very early date. We all deplore the three disasters to overloaded passenger ships which the Minister of State mentioned. We cannot quarrel with the Government's desire to seek at an early date to do something about increasing the penalties, although we are not entirely happy with the idea of unlimited fines. This is a matter which we may want to look at again. Nevertheless, I am glad that this opportunity is being taken to deal with the question of overloaded passenger ships as well as with the overloading of cargo ships.
A fourth reason why it is necessary to have a new Convention is that things have greatly changed since the 1930 Convention, in that that Convention made no provision for tankers more than 600 feet in length or for any ship more than 750 feet in length. The fact that at present 60 tankers of 200,000 tons are being built in various shipyards throughout the world shows the technical changes which have occurred in shipping since 1930.
There is perhaps a fifth reason why it is desirable for the new Convention


to be implemented. This is connected with the seasonal zones. I understand that the new Convention will allow ships which are rounding the Cape of Good Hope or sailing round the south coast of Australia to remain in the summer zone and, therefore, to be more fully laden than they are at present.
I understand that the general effect of the Convention, and therefore of the Bill, will be that tankers and bulk carriers will be allowed to carry more. It is, perhaps, a sad topical reflection that under the Convention the "Torrey Canyon" might have been carrying even more oil than she was. The technical advice I have received is to the effect that this is not a certainty, but it is a possibility. Small ships will in some cases be able to carry less cargo than at present.
However, on balance the British merchant fleet will be able to carry more than at present. The Bill will, therefore, have the effect of increasing the total carrying capacity of the British merchant fleet which, although no longer the largest in the world, is still very large indeed. This will be an advantage to the shipping services which this country provides, with such great advantage to our balance of payments.
I come now to the form of the Bill. The 1932 Act was criticised on the ground that it consisted of no fewer than 54 pages of very great detail setting out exactly the terms of the 1930 Convention. On this occasion the Government have decided to act more by regulation and not to set out in great detail the terms of last year's Convention. Normally the Conservative Opposition, and, indeed, all oppositions, are a little critical of too much government by regulation, but in this case we believe that it is justified and that it is probably the best way of implementing the detailed terms of the Convention, which are exceedingly technical.
I ask the Government for an undertaking that the Board of Trade will consult the shipping industry and the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom

in drawing up these rules and regulations. This is an important proviso, because they are technical matters and not matters which are suitable for lengthy debates in the House.
I agree that the Bill is necessary and that it is desirable to get the Convention in force as soon as possible. The Minister of State told us that the Convention will come into force a whole year after the additional six States have ratified, three of which must own more than one million tons of shipping. The sooner this is done the better. We are glad that the Government, as the representatives of the leading maritime nation, are taking a lead in this matter. It stresses the importance of this Convention.
It was announced yesterday that a new Convention will be called by the Government concerning the problems thrown up by the "Torrey Canyon". It may well be that another Convention will at some time consider the problems of radioactive waste in the sea. More and more ships are becoming nuclear-propelled. I think that already on the bottom of the sea there is one submarine which was nuclear-propelled. This is a question which will have to be faced in the long run, even though the adoption of nuclear propulsion by merchant ships does not seem to be making rapid progress as yet.
On behalf of the Opposition I welcome the Convention. I am glad that the Government have acted on it with reasonable speed.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: By leave of the House, may I thank the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) for welcoming the Bill and for his very constructive approach to it. I give him an absolute assurance that, when the Board of Trade is framing the regulations, we shall have the closest consultations with all the shipping interests.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOAD LINES)

Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of fees required to be so paid by virtue of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to load lines and related matters.—[Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ABLE SEAMAN MICHAEL GOLDSWORTHY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

11.40 a.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am glad to have the opportunity of raising the case of Able Seaman Michael Goldsworthy, the son of one of my constituents. To me, there is in this case a grave and continuing injustice which, I claim, must now he put right.
I am the last man to snipe at the Navy, for which I have great admiration. In fact, my older brother was called up as a naval cadet during the First World War at the age of 14 and was torpedoed and survived that torpedoing by the age of 14½. Naturally, I was proud of that. We are now 50 years on, however, and we are in peace time, and this is not the time for Nelsonian heroics or for pressgang methods in the British Navy.
My constituent Mr. Goldsworthy, the father of the able seaman, also has an admiration for the Armed Services. It may be his enthusiasm for the Armed Services that has partly led the Navy into this trouble, but I claim that neither father nor son should have been punished for such enthusiasm.
This is not the case of an irresponsible son of an irresponsible father. Far from it. The father is a hard-working patriotic type of man who from his own home

runs a small television servicing and rental business, a pay-as-you-view business, which he runs entirely by himself.
In 1960, when aged 15, his son Michael was also fired with enthusiasm for the Navy. To a boy of 15 the advertisements can be grandiloquent and compelling. So both father and son went to the recruiting depôt at Acton. The boy signed on as a boy sailor for three years and nine years thereafter. His father gave his consent.
Both father and son were, I am told, under the impression that the father could purchase his son's discharge at any time, particularly at the age of 18, when his boy service came to an end. Mr. Goldsworthy senior tells me, in fact, that at the recruiting depôt the recruiting officer said, "You can always buy your boy out. It costs more the sooner he comes out." The officer failed to point out, however, that if there was a privilege of discharge, it could be exercised only when the Navy agreed on compassionate grounds, which are seldom agreed to. The net is, therefore, tightly drawn and it is very difficult to get out.
At the age of 17, Michael told his father that he had changed his mind and was not happy in the Navy and did not want to go on. His father went back to the recruiting depot but was told that nothing could be done until the boy was 21, except on strong compassionate grounds, which were not then established, because he was told that the boy had to complete the three years' boy service and then half of the remaining nine years, or an additional 4½ years after completion of his boy service, which would mean his having to serve 7½ years before he could apply to get out of the Navy. That was what his father was told.
In 1965, five years after the boy had signed on—he had been in no trouble up to this stage—he was in H.M.S. "Hardy", a ship lying in Portsmouth Harbour. The boy's story is that he was on duty with another young seaman in the officers' mess. Because of the noise of the Tannoy system, which the officers did not like in the mess, the officers had turned off the Tannoy system. The captain or commander called a muster of the crew through the Tannoy system. The two young seamen did not hear the call. They were arrested and taken before the officer of the day. Although they made their case before the


office, Able Seaman Goldsworthy was given nine days' confinement to ship and extra fatigues.
Able Seaman Goldsworthy regarded the punishment as very unjust in the circumstances but he was prepared to take it. This happened on a Friday or Saturday. He asked for the punishment to be changed to a fine or to be deferred until the Monday, which, I understand, is a recognised practice in the Navy. His request for deferment to the Monday, however, was refused.
Unfortunately, his girl friend—he was rising 20 at the time—who was also in the Services, was about to leave for Germany. It was his girl friend's last weekend before she was due to go. Unable to get leave to see her, he jumped ship and thus faced double trouble. The result was that he went on the run in August, 1965. That was his first serious offence during five years in the Navy.
In the five months which followed, the father heard nothing from the son until his return home in January, 1966, when the boy was very run down, depressed, hungry and penniless and came back home. Mr. Goldsworthy senior, who had been in constant touch with the naval police at Kennington, telephoned them as soon as the boy came back. The naval police came and took Able Seaman Goldsworthy away from his home the same evening. He was reported as being arrested at home. While that may be technically correct, the boy gave himself up voluntarily at the suggestion of his father.
He received 42 days' detention in Her Majesty's detention quarters, where life is pretty tough and everything is done at the double. He maintains that he was allowed two cigarettes a day but that the chief petty officer who issued the cigarettes ran down the line throwing them at the detainees and that if a detainee did not catch a cigarette, it was stamped into the ground.
After that 42 days' detention, one would have thought that he had been sufficiently punished. On returning to H.M.S. "Vernon", however, Michael says that he found that all his kit had been sold. He was therefore in debt to the extent of approximately £100. Regular deductions were made from his pay, leaving him only 10s. a week, a state

of affairs which was likely to last for a year. He requested that the stoppages be limited to £5 a month, leaving him with £2 a week for his own expenses, but his request was refused. He was, therefore, left with only 10s. a week, half of which had to be spent on cleaning equipment, leaving him with only 5s. a week, so that he could scarcely smoke, drink or enjoy any pocket money for a year. This in addition to his detention seems to me to be a very grave punishment.
By that time, the boy had, I am sorry to say, come to detest the Navy. He got a week's leave in August, 1966, and decided not to return to his ship. He is now somewhere in hiding. He is certainly not at home. He is now 21 years of age, rising 22.
One important aspect of the case is that, on the first absence without leave, his father conscientiously kept in touch with the naval police and the welfare authorities, and he said that he was told by the naval police that if his son gave himself up he would be sympathetically treated and would probably get a compassionate discharge. The Minister will remember that Mr. Goldsworthy persuaded the boy of the necessity to return to his ship and informed the police of his son's return.
Now, however, the father feels that he was badly let down, and this is why he is not inclined to help in his son's second desertion from the Navy. The further point should be made that, during the whole of the boy's first absence from his ship, no one visited the father or mother to investigate the case, and, in fact, no one from the Navy has been to investigate the case at home even up to now.
There are certain sad factors connected with the family in general which, in my view, qualify for the boy's release on compassionate and medical grounds. The compassionate grounds are as follows. Mr. Goldsworthy's health is deteriorating. There is no doubt about that. He has, in his own words, been driven "scatty" by this case. He has had to attend the West Middlesex Hospital for psychiatric treatment, and he holds medical certificates of his mental state which have been submitted to the Navy. He badly wants help with his very demanding business, in which he works about 12 hours a day.
I visited the family in their home. There is no doubt that the boy's mother is on the edge of a nervous breakdown. There is a boy of 12 at home who is so upset by the house having been searched by the police that he is afraid to go out of it if he sees a policeman within sight of his home. Moreover, Mr. and Mrs. Goldsworthy have a mongol girl child aged 5 who needs constant nursing and attendance, and one of the parents always has to be at home to look after the child. I claim, therefore, that the compassionate grounds for the boy to return home to his parents in this sad position are more than sufficient.
I have had correspondence with the Ministry ever since August. At the end of February, I put a full statement of the whole case before the Under-Secretary of State, and he asked me for a fortnight in which it could be investigated. I said that I would put down a Question on 15th March, which I did, to which the hon. Gentleman replied:
I am unable to consider the case for this man's discharge on compassionate, or any other grounds, while he remains in desertion".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 111.]
In my view, this matter cannot be allowed to drift on. It must be brought to a head. The Navy always says that it cannot discuss the case while the boy is a deserter. Whenever there is a strike, every employer always says that he will not negotiate until there is a return to work, yet the employer always has to negotiate. Why should not the Admiralty make a start now?
I ask the Under-Secretary of State to consider the adverse publicity which the case has created. One journalist interested in it told me that the Admiralty has bought itself £10,000 worth of adverse publicity over this one case alone. I for one would very much like to see it brought to an end.
I put it to the Minister that, in the first place, the boy is, obviously, no good to the Navy now and he should have his discharge. If the Navy feels that he must be punished, I would urge the boy even then to give himself up if he can feel that there will be a certain reasonable punishment, say, not more than two months, and he can have his discharge thereafter. But I must have that understanding.

I do not think it fair that he and his father should be let down a second time.
This case illustrates some general principles. One cannot bind a boy of 15 for 12 years. One of my own sons, a hard-working and conscientious boy, has changed his job three times in 10 years, and on each occasion everyone agreed that it was reasonable for him to find a job which suited him better. I do not feel that one can hold a boy, against his will, with only a possible chance of discharge on extremely compassionate grounds, after 7½ years, to which the Navy itself must agree.
As a result of this case, I have received a large number of letters of support from all over the country testifying to the unfairness of the whole procedure. Letters have come from others of my constituents testifying to the good character of the Goldsworthy family, and letters have come from people in other parts of the country quoting similar cases happening to their own boys or boys in the neighbourhood.
In my view, boys of 15 who sign on should be given a choice, first, not after three months, when they have hardly had time to sample the Service, but after six months. Then they should have a further option at the end of their boy's service, after three years, when they are 18, and a final choice at 21.
Here is the opinion given by an eminent lawyer on agreements of this kind into which lads enter at the age of 15. This lawyer said:
I have no doubt that if this was a contract to which the Infants Relief Act 1874 applied"—
that Act applies to all ordinary contracts made with children—
such a contract, by reason of the length of time that the infant binds himself to one master and by reason of the fact that the master can vary the terms of service at will and also its general unilateral character, would be held to be unenforceable against the infant. Furthermore, the infant would have the opportunity of repudiating the contract within a reasonable time of his attaining his majority".
That is what I would like the Navy to permit these boys to do. By driving them to desert, to get out of the Service, as has happened, the Navy is driving them to a life of crime. How else can they live while on the run? I feel that the


Navy is driving some of our finest young men, I am sorry to say, into being shirkers and rotters.
I want the Minister to say that this boy Michael Goldsworthy is, in the changed circumstances, of no use to the Navy, and that his family is suffering from severe medical disabilities which provide compassionate grounds for his case to be sympathetically considered, and he should now be granted a discharge on compassionate grounds. I want the Minister to give me a firm undertaking that he will be treated reasonably and, in that event, I will make my best endeavours to get the boy to give himself up to the Navy so that, in due course and in the appropriate time, he can receive his discharge.

11.57 a.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: The case which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has raised is typical of an important and difficult problem for the Services. The hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) raised the matter in its wider context recently in the House.
My hon. Friend has said that the Navy has earned itself £10,000 worth of adverse publicity. I heard the case discussed twice on the radio this morning, and I think that the adverse publicity which the Royal Navy, in which I had the honour to serve, will acquire out of it will far exceed the value of this boy or, indeed, all the boys who are in service with the Navy today.
I have read the reply by the hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence for Administration to the Adjournment debate raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough on 13th March, and I must say that, although it shows a lively awareness of Service requirements, it shows no appreciation whatever of the principles involved. For example, the hon. Gentleman said:
I cannot accept the claim that people are not aware when committing themselves to an apprenticeship that the period of service for which they are signing commences only at the age of 18".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 187.]
I am not a lawyer, but I have always understood that there has long been a principle of civil law in this country applying to contracts entered into by young people. The hon. Lady quoted Halsbury's Laws of England in her

speech on 13th March, and Halsbury's Laws of England, as you know well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is not just a chapter in Bertrand Russell's autobiography. It is one of the solid bases on which the law of the land stands. Halsbury's Laws of England states that
An infant is of immature intelligence and discretion.
That is in absolute conflict with what the Minister said.
A second principle is involved, of which the case is typical. We have always held in the House that the civil law is paramount. That is what the Parkes case was about. There is a further possibility of legal action pending there, but when the Parkes case came to this House it was the idea that the Service Departments were overriding the civil court which above all made us angry.
That is what is happening here, and what the Services are still doing. Someone of 15 is legally an infant. He cannot sign a contract, drive a car or motorcycle, cannot vote and cannot marry, but he can sign away his life for the next 12 years. That is astonishing.
I know that there is an opportunity for the boy, infant, or whatever one calls him, to reconsider his position after three months, but that period is ludicrous for a boy who has joined up at 15½. One appreciates that the Service has its problems and requirements, but that is not the way to do things.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us that the inquiry will soon be completed. I implore him to use whatever pressure and power he has to see that the whole system concerning the personal rights of infants entering the Services is changed.

12.2 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Maurice Foley): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) for introducing this subject, and I pay tribute to the restrained way in which he dealt with the matter and the way in which he has pursued it over the months in the cause of his constituents.
It may be useful if I "recap" briefly the history of the whole case, and I want to draw attention to a number of statements which are not correct. Able Seaman Goldsworthy formally joined the


Navy on 6th September, 1960, at the age of 15 years and two months. He served until 28th August, 1965, when he deserted at the age of 20 years and two months. He was recovered from desertion on 11th January, 1966, and was awarded 42 days' detention. He returned to duty on 11th February and served until 23rd May, 1966, when he began his present period of desertion.
The first question we should clarify is whether he was misled on joining. I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt), although I was tempted to do so. The idea that a boy of 15 signs himself away is totally false. In this case, Michael Goldsworthy went with his father to the Acton Recruiting Office in July, 1960, and both signed the normal initial forms completed by candidates for entry. I do not want to read it out. The hon. Member for Twickenham has a facsimile copy of the forms that were signed. There is a form signed by the boy with his father present. There is also a form signed by the father, and a further form signed by the boy's headmaster. There is no question of small print here. It was clearly stated and clearly understood—by the father and headmaster at least, if not all three—what they were signing.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I was trying to conclude my speech by 12 o'clock, or I could have gone on longer on the subject. I realise that the boy does not sign on his own and that parents are involved. There are endless reasons why parents might want him to join—the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) previously talked about broken homes, which are an obvious reason why parents should be parted from their sons. But nobody has the right to sign for anybody in a civilian capacity, and there should not be the right to do it for the Services.

Mr. Foley: I shall return to the general later; I am now dealing with the particular. I raised the matter only because people might have gained from the hon. Gentleman's speech the notion of boys going off on their own in a fit of rage because they were punished by their father and signing up with the father having nothing to do with it. That is not the case. Father, boy and headmaster signed the form, and understood

what it was about. On the form are the words:
I acknowledge that I am bound to serve until the end of my engagement and I understand that earlier discharge is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.
There was no question of trying to mislead, so there was no question of press-ganging. They were aware what they were doing.
The completion of the initial forms was done in July, 1960. It did not bind the candidate to serve in the Royal Navy. Not until he joins his training establishment and has been given a few days to adjust and settle in is a candidate required to complete the form of engagement committing him to a particular period of service. The normal practice is for the captain of the training establishment to see each candidate during his first week to explain the form to him. Until he signs that form of engagement the candidate can change his mind about joining the Royal Navy and return home free of all commitment.
In this case, Michael Goldsworthy joined the Naval establishment in September, and therefore father and son had two months after the signing the initial form to think, "Is this the right and proper thing to do? Were we bulldozed into something? Can we now have second thoughts?" After joining the training establishment he still had in his first week the possibility of saying, free of parental influence, "I shall leave and not sign the engagement form."

Mr. Gresham Cooke: The sort of second thoughts about which the Minister speaks are like those one has in a hire-purchase agreement, but the right to them does not appear on the front of the form, which says:
I, … understand that I am joining the Royal Navy as a Junior 2nd class for service as a SEAMAN, or COMMUNICATION RATING for a period of Twelve years' Total Service: …

Mr. Foley: We are talking of the particular case, he signed the form on 20th July and it was not until September that he joined the training establishment, so that the father and son had between six weeks and two months to think again whether they would go through with it.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: My point is that that right to think again, if it exists, does not appear on the form.

Mr. Foley: Of course it does not appear on the form. We are talking of the particular case of Michael Goldsworthy. That is the subject of the debate. He signed the form on 20th July and did not join the training establishment until September.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am quoting from his form. I have a facsimile.

Mr. Foley: I am aware that the hon. Member has a facsimile. I am stating what actually happened. He did not immediately join the training establishment and had a further period to think again if necessary. That shows that in this case there can he no suggestion of press-ganging or bulldozing anybody into a decision, or his being bounced into something.
Having gone to the training establishment, he could have decided in his first week, and away from parental influences, that he did not want to sign the engagement form. If he had found in his early period of training in the first training establishment that he did not like it, or the captain found that he was not fitting in, he could have been discharged.
The hon. Member was right to say that the first signs of unhappiness came at the age of 17. He then told his father that he would like to leave the Navy. It is true that Mr. Goldsworthy made inquiries from the recruiting officer, who correctly advised him that apart from the possibility of discharge on compassionate ground there was no prospect of release until Michael was 21. I do not want to go into details of the incident which led to his desertion.
The charge may well have been trivial and he may well have been tried and sentenced and accepted his sentence, but asked for it to be postponed, his request being refused. I cannot go into the merits of why when a sentence is passed it is not carried out immediately. It was a disciplinary act. As for the idea that one could go away and start a sentence on Monday—these sentences are often designed to give a salutary lesson and that is why it happened straight away.
It is true that his father behaved most properly and that when the son arrived at home his father contacted the military police and that the rating was taken in charge. It is true that he was sentenced

to 42 days' detention and discharged back to duty in February. So far as I can gather from the records, it is true that he might have been advised by one of the military policemen who took him into custody that there was a possibility of compassionate discharge. Clearly, no one would suppose that a military policeman taking someone into custody could be firm or absolute about that; he was giving no more than his opinion.
I have looked into what has been said about the cigarette issue. There is no substance in the allegation that cigarettes are thrown at detainees and stamped into the ground if not caught. In detention there is a system by which everyone does things at the double. If it is thought that that is purely and simply in detention quarters, I should say that I am told that officer training at Dartmouth in the first term includes doing everything at the double. It is part of the process of "making a man". I have not been through it myself and I cannot comment on its efficacy or worth-whileness, but it is common practice. I am also told that the idea of the staff at detention quarters deliberately grinding cigarettes into the ground when they are dropped is completely foreign to the attitude of the staff, who are carefully chosen men. I have had inquiries made into those questions and I am told that that does not happen.
The hon. Member has been completely misled about the sale of kit and pay. Naval discipline provides that a deserter's kit is sold. This is normal practice once a man has been in desertion for a month. The precise financial situation of Able Seaman Goldsworthy was that on his first desertion in August, 1965, he had a credit balance of £9 4s. 6d., which remained on the books as a credit. On his recovery, this sum was still to his credit and he returned to full pay on his release from detention on 11th February, 1966. The charge incurred for the replacement of kit deficiencies amounted to £18 1s. 1d.
On arrival at H.M.S. "Vernon", after he had completed his spell in detention, he was £35 in credit. He continued to receive full pay until the date of his second desertion, receiving in that time £117, an average of approximately £8 a week. I do not know how there arose the idea that he had to live on 5s. a week. I have given the facts which I asked


for from the cashier and which are provided on the basis of the man's pay statements. I raise that matter because the hon. Member for Twickenham has been misled about those facts.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of no one having visited the house. There have been contradictory statements. The son is afraid of going out because of police pestering, it is said. The police who are "pestering" are the police who have called at the house and they are the naval police. The hon. Gentleman says that no one has visited the house, but the naval police have, because they intend to arrest this man, or to encourage him to give himself up.
As for the welfare department of the Navy visiting the house, as a matter of custom when someone is in desertion the naval welfare people do not visit the house concerned. Clearly, until such a person gives himself up, one cannot see what the compassionate grounds or circumstances are, as I explained to the hon. Gentleman in reply to a Question of his in March.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: The naval police go to the house only for the purpose of searching. They go in a hostile way. No one has been to discuss the case with the parents.

Mr. Foley: It has been made clear to the parents that there is no possibility of the case being discussed until Able Seaman Goldsworthy gives himself up.
I want now to refer to the legal situation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that a bargain should be struck in terms of dealing with this man, or promising what will happen if he gives himself up. This is not just a matter of bending naval regulations. It is not a matter of Navy policy alone. Hon. Members will be aware that in 1966 the House passed the Armed Forces Act which amended previous regulations and which in Section 18(2,c) said
knowing any such person to have committed such an offence"—
that is, desertion—
procures or persuades or assists him to remain a deserter, absentee without leave or improperly absent from his ship or place of duty, or assists in his rescue from custody …".
That Act imposes a penalty on those who aid or abet a deserter. This is not

a matter of my making regulations or of the Navy making regulations; this is what the House decided last year in the Armed Forces Act.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that by implication he is saying that the Navy now intends to, or should, take action against the B.B.C.?

Mr. Foley: I want to draw the attention of hon. Members and of the Press and of others to the fact that anyone who aids or abets a deserter is in breach not of naval law, but of law established by Act of Parliament. I cannot make it any clearer than that. The law of desertion is enacted by Parliament which has prescribed punishments for the offence.
A warrant is out for the arrest of this rating. Public policy requires that the law should be observed and enforced by bringing him to trial. It is a matter of serious concern that Able Seaman Goldsworthy, who has been defying the law, has been in contact with and received encouragement from many persons who might be expected to uphold the law.
I now turn to the subject of compassion. Soon after his first absence, Able Seaman Goldsworthy applied for a compassionate discharge on the grounds of his father's health and the wish to relieve him from the running of the family business. Mr. Goldsworthy was asked to obtain a report from his doctor and the naval welfare organisation made inquiries about the family's general circumstances. However, at that time it was felt that the rating's presence at home was not vital and compassion, therefore, did not arise. Since his second desertion, I have seen further medical reports and the hon. Member for Twickenham has been kind enough to inform me of his own visits to his constituent and of his deteriorating health. This will, clearly, be taken into consideration.
I now turn to the future. When he is arrested or surrenders to the police or the naval authorities, Able Seaman Goldsworthy must stand trial for his offence. He will appear before the Commodore, Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth, who will decide whether he should be tried summarily or be court martialled. Clearly, the longer he stays in desertion, the more severe is his penalty. After he has been tried and a verdict given, then the question of his


release on compassionate grounds can be examined once more. I cannot forecast what the outcome of that would be, but I can say that, in the light of the information which the hon. Member for Twickenham has given and in the light of our knowledge and of the further knowledge which we hope we will acquire, we shall have far stronger grounds on compassionate reasons than anything we have had up to now.
If I may now turn briefly to the broadcast raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt), I wish to make it clear to the House that this case is not typical. There may well be instances of people who are unhappy in the Forces, and there are equally, instances every day of people successfully applying for discharge on compassionate grounds. The idea that we are somehow in the Nelson days, press-ganging people into the Navy and keeping them there, is utterly false.
Nevertheless, we have recognised, the Minister of Defence for Administration and myself, that this whole matter should be looked at again. The hon. Member will be aware that last year we introduced a break point after three months for juniors. He will be aware that the Minister of Defence for Administration, in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), said:
I shall announce the outcome of my investigations when they are completed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 214.]
In an Adjournment debate the Minister said:
… but I cannot say how long they—
the investigations—
will take, for they involve long-term considerations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 185.]
Again, on 15th March, I made it clear when I said:
I cannot promise that there will be an answer in a matter of weeks, but there is a degree of urgency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 586.]
I am seized with this whole question, and whatever we do we must weigh up the two sides, that is to say, the needs in terms of manpower and the whole question of people in the Navy who are unhappy and who cannot do a good job. We are probably doing some harm to morale within the Navy.
I recognise this and these are the things that we will be dealing with in this investigation. I would ask the House to be patient about this. I have noted the comments of the hon. Member on the legal aspect of this and I am aware of his own legal background. I would not like to tread into this aspect without some advice, but I will certainly look into the points raised, and see that they are introduced as a factor to the Committee which is reviewing the system.
I urge, as strongly as I am able, that Able Seaman Goldsworthy should now give himself up and that those who may have influence with him should advise him to do so. In the long run this is in his own interests; it is in the interests of his father and his business, and his whole family. It is in the interests of all hon. Members and others, who have been campaigning on his behalf.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: May I say that I am very much obliged to the Minister for going so fully into this case. I will think over very carefully what he has said and will discuss the matter with the father. I will not say any more than that.

Orders of the Day — SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX

12.25 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: I wish to raise the question of the damaging effects of the Selective Employment Tax on the pattern of employment, upon the pattern of industry and the cost of living as it affects the ordinary person. I do it now to reinforce the many letters which have been sent to the Chancellor in the hope that this House can influence him before his Budget proposals are announced.
I am very much aware that once the Chancellor has announced his Budget proposals he is in something of a difficult situation, involving a loss of prestige in withdrawing proposals made or which he is making. I thought it wise to raise this now before the Budget. I appreciate very much the appearance of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the Government Front Bench. I realise that he is inhibited from saying very much, because the Chancellor is at present in what I think is known as his "broody" period, during which time he cannot leak out the Chancellor's proposals.
I hope that he will note and ponder the matters which are drawn to his attention this morning. I base my remarks on three factors—common sense, a recent E.D.C. report, and a survey that I have carried out in my constituency, in Basingstoke and Andover. I believe this to be the largest private survey carried out anywhere in the United Kingdom on the effect of S.E.T. Over 500 firms were contacted and asked how S.E.T. affected their business.
It has been a major task analysing the replies. I do not suggest that this gives a statistically balanced sample of the entire United Kingdom, but it does give a comprehensive cross-section of the distributive trades in two towns and will, therefore, be a very helpful guide as to what is happening on the ground. Some firms dealt with S.E.T. in several ways. I can only assure the Financial Secretary that my analysis is statistically as fair a picture of the results of S.E.T. as I can get from the replies.
I will give the bare statistics before going any further. Three per cent. of the firms reduced the service to their customers, almost all by cutting out a delivery service. A total of 5 per cent. reduced the number that they employed, or changed the type of person in their employment from part-time to full-time. A further 9 per cent., all shopkeepers, reduced their standard of living.
These are small shopkeepers who have previously been employing someone part time and who either could not afford to do without the part-time worker and are financially worse off or who had to work longer hours because they dismissed a part-time worker. The picture here is of the smaller firm where the proprietor appears to be working very long hours, certainly in excess of what would be approved by any trade union and for less per hour than would be approved by any trade union. Some 22 per cent., a very large proportion, cut back on the modernisation and expansion proposals which they had for their businesses and 52 per cent. simply increased their prices to customers.
The E.D.C. report specialised on the question of the pattern of employment. It is as well to have the thing in context

and to recognise that the E.D.C. report concerned itself solely with three things, whether there were changes in employment policy, what was the cost of S.E.T., and what changes had occurred in the numbers employed during the period under review. The report attracted 40 organisations representing 330,000 workers in the distributive trades and it used replies from 33. One is fascinated to know what happened to the remaining replies—perhaps they were quite unprintable. The E.D.C. records show some rather startling results of S.E.T., particularly startling if the Financial Secretary and his colleagues will cast their minds back to the reasons given for introducing the tax. It was supposed to get people out of employment in the distributive trades and into the productive trades, to transfer people, or encourage the transference into our manufacturing industry and the like. I can quote numerous Government Front Bench speeches indicating this.
What has happened is that there has been a reduction in the numbers of part-time employees and an increase in the numbers of full-time employees. In other words, people have been getting rid of two part-timers who would be of little value in manufacturing industry and taking on full-time workers because the Selective Employment Tax is the same for both of them and it is, therefore, more economic to have a full-time worker rather than two part-time workers. One of the results thrown up by the E.D.C. report is a direct contradiction of the effects which the Chancellor of the Exchequer planned.
My survey in my constituency shows that the tax has had one main effect. Part-time workers have been sacked. It is fair to say that some of them have not been replaced by full-time workers. Some of them are women, but mainly they are old-age pensioners who take a part-time job. This is a particularly unfortunate effect of the tax.
I suggest—and I hope that the Chancellor will give serious consideration to this—that the tax for part-time employees should be at a pro rata rate or half the rate of the tax payable for full-time workers. It is perfectly possible to do this by altering the stamp. I also suggest that we end the nonsense of the


firms which pay in and receive back. The administrative costs of this operation are totally unnecessary and something which, I should have thought, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would wish to dispense with as soon as possible in the interests of efficient administration of the economy. I believe that firms should simply pay at reduced rates.
My second major point concerns the damaging effect of the tax on the pattern of industry. The E.D.C. report draws attention to transport and warehouse workers doing the same work. Some of their employers get the premium. It is paid for those transport and warehouse workers who work for a manufacturer. Some of them pay in and get it back—those who are working purely for transport concerns. Some pay the full levy per employee because their warehouse happens to be that of a wholesaler.
It is totally illogical that a product stored and distributed by a manufacturer should be treated totally differently when it is handled by a distributor. Many businesses have been built up on providing specialist distributor services. A manufacturer who wants supplies of paper does not go to every mill in the country and ask for a sample of paper. He goes to a paper wholesaler who produces samples of this or that quality, or this or that shade. He goes through them and selects what he wants and then orders it from the mill. The service provided by the specialist wholesaler-distributor is valuable for industry, whether export industry or home industry.
Take the question of buying new machinery, electrical equipment or the 1,001 other things which are needed in a factory or articles used for manufacture for export. Again, one does not go to every factory for every item. One goes to someone whose job it is to collect the items together, to warehouse them and supply them when they are wanted. This is a valuable part of the efficient working of our trade and industry.
Now it pays a manufacturer to set up his own distribution network in addition to, or in replacement of, the specialist wholesaler. The Financial Secretary may shake his head, but I have examples of this which I can give him. If he likes, I will send some of the papers to him. It is an unnecessary and wasteful

duplication of national resources that manufacturers are encouraged to extend and even to set up distribution networks for their products when there are already in existence wholesalers who specialise in this work.
I give another example of the oddity of this tax. This is something of which I was not aware before it was drawn to my attention, and no doubt the Financial Secretary is not aware of it. An industrial photographer does not go to weddings and funerals to take photographs. He specialises in taking photographs which are used in manufacturing departments of modern technological industry—things like printed circuits in the radio and electrical industry. If he works for a manufacturer, the manufacturer receives a contribution from the Government. If he works for himself and does work for several manufacturers, which is more efficient, the tax has to be paid on the employees in the firm. A nonsense is being created, a distortion in the economy.
Apart from the distortions in the industrial economy—and there are thousands of them—there are many personal and human problems. There are organisations in my constituency doing charitable work, mainly in healing. They are not registered charities and therefore cannot get the benefits of being one which were wrung out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Budget debates last year. Therefore, they have to pay the tax. I should have thought that there was a strong case, reinforced by the other examples which I have given, for flexibility in the system so that different rates of tax might be charged and so that there might be discretion in the hands of the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Social Security locally about what should be paid by individual people.
There is the nonsense concerning hotel proprietors who earn valuable foreign exchange for this country and who have to pay the tax on their employees. Their money is being used to subsidise manufacturers, regardless of whether they help the export trade or not. They subsidise the manufacturer of Christmas decorations, of coloured candles and of children's toys. Here I refer to the Prime Minister's famous remarks about the "candy-floss" economy. He is the man who for the first time in this country's


history has subsidised the manufacturer of candy floss. Yet the hotel industry, which earns valuable foreign exchange for this country, is penalised.
To return to my survey, 22 per cent. of the people have saved on the money they are putting by for expansion, modernisation, new equipment, replacing road vehicles and meeting the technological age. Taking the longer-term view, I should have thought that it was essential that more money should be put by for expansion, modernisation, modern and safer road vehicles and new equipment. The Government's action is a recipe for utility and austerity in years to come.
I come finally to the effect of the tax on the cost of living of ordinary people. My survey shows that 52 per cent. simply passed on the increase. Some of the letters which I have received from people, particularly in the retail trade, are such that I could not read them in Parliamentary language. Suffice it to say that 52 per cent. have passed on the tax in one form or another, and this at a time when a freeze is being enforced. It is quite clear from my survey that the Government's intentions have in large measure—

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: The hon. Member has said that 52 per cent. have passed on the tax. Can he say what percentage has been passed on to the consumer in those cases?

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. In the survey which I have carried out in my constituency, I asked how the firms were treating the Selective Employment Tax. I have no statistical information about whether they have passed it on in full or in part. Some firms say that they have passed it on only in part, for reasons mainly of competition, particularly in the grocery trade. They could not raise their prices higher because, for example, there was a competitor on the other side of the road. Some firms have passed on the tax in part and some have cut down on their employees. Basically, 52 per cent. appear to have made straight increases in price by which they have tried as fairly as possible to pass on what the tax costs them.
The Government's overall intention appears to have been to apply a wage freeze and to operate the Selective Employment Tax, coupled with increases in vehicle licence duty, petrol tax and the like, which have had the effect of forcing up prices. One does not need to be an economist, a financier or a Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand simply what is happening.
We have a situation in which wages are pegged but prices are not merely rising but are being forced up by the action of the Government with the S.E.T., which, they specifically said when introducing their prices and incomes legislation, was one of the things which employers were entitled to pass on to consumers. My survey shows that over half of them have done so.
Therefore, in direct contradiction to all that the Government said at the General Election, when golden opportunities were held out for the people, we find that the practical effect of what they are doing has been to peg wages and to force up prices. To force up prices when wages are pegged means only one thing: a lower standard of living.
The difference between the S.E.T. and any other tax, however, is that that lower standard of living does not affect those who are best able to pay. It does not affect those who are wealthiest or who have the biggest wage increase. It bears hardest on those who are least able to afford it, the old, the sick, the part-timers and people on fixed incomes. It hurts the weakest most. If that is the practical result of the Government's policies, the sooner that the Selective Employment Tax is not merely amended, as I have invited the Treasury to amend it, but swept away altogether, the better it will be for the country.

12.44 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): In listening to the peroration of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), I wondered whether he would care to pass on those sentiments to those of his hon. Friends—I am not sure that he is not one of them—who keep urging us to reduce the rate of direct taxation and increase the rate of indirect taxation. People who use that argument


sometimes forget the considerations to which the hon. Member has just referred in his peroration.
The hon. Member courteously acknowledged at the beginning of his remarks that I am liable to be singularly uncommunicative in replying to the points which he has raised. As he appreciates, in the classical words of Mr. Baldwin, my lips are sealed at a time like this. The hon. Member has, however, raised some wider observations concerning the Selective Employment Tax to which I am inclined to reply.
I have listened with intense interest to the information which the hon. Member has given concerning the survey which he has conducted in his constituency. I would be most interested to see a fuller report on it if he has one. It is an interesting example of the effect in a fairly representative town of the way in which employers have tackled the problems with which they have been confronted as a result of this tax.
If a new tax is introduced, particularly in a sphere in which people have, perhaps, had a lighter tax burden than others previously, they will find themselves confronted with problems and may even smart under a sense of what appears to them to be injustice. In our view, however, as we have said throughout, we were correcting an imbalance in the tax system in that the weight of indirect taxes fell much more heavily upon the manufacturing sector than upon the service industries. Be that as it may, what we are concerned with here is how firms have dealt with the tax.
I was interested to see what a relatively small percentage—5 per cent.—came within the category of employers reducing the number of people employed or changing employees from part time to full time. The hon. Member suggested that changes from part-time to full-time employment meant getting rid of two part-timers and employing instead a new full-time employee. Our information is that it by no means always, or necessarily even in the majority of cases, happens that way. The evidence is that many employers have persuaded hitherto part-time employees to work full-time.
I would be interested to know—not necessarily now, but at some time if the

hon. Member has the figures from his survey—how many dismissals have resulted of either part-time or full-time employees, but preferably of both, and the actual figures of dismissals as opposed to a shift among the same employees from part-time to full-time employment.
We are, of course, aware of the comments that have been made, including the comments of the E.D.C. Report to which the hon. Member has referred, about the effect of the tax on part-time employment. The hon. Member said that 22 per cent. of firms have cut back on modernisation and expansion and such things as replacement of road vehicles. I do not in any way challenge his efforts to make a dispassionate report of the results of his survey.
What I wonder is the extent to which any action of that kind which has been taken is really the effect of the S.E.T. and how much is the effect of the July measures. It may be a combination of both. In so far as it is a combination of both, naturally the firms would, in answer to the survey, say that this was the way in which they had dealt with the effect of it. I make that comment only to say that I would not accept that as a permanent feature of the tax this would be a representative figure of the way in which firms would deal with it.
In his closing remarks particularly, the hon. Gentleman criticised the tax as having the result that 52 per cent. of employers increased their prices to customers. In fact, the main object and first purpose of the tax was to raise additional revenue in order to reduce demand. May I correct at once the heresy which was repeated again by the hon. Gentleman that the first and main purpose of the tax was to transfer workers from the service sector to the manufacturing sector. It was not. That was the third purpose of the tax, and in a different form. It was not to transfer workers, but, in the long term, to shift the balance from employment in service industries to employment in manufacturing industries, and we said that we anticipated that that would come about as a result of recruitment policy rather than the transfer of employees from one sector to the other.
The main and first purpose was to raise a substantial body of taxation and do it in a way which would not impose yet further burdens on those sectors which


are at the moment bearing the main brunt of taxation.
If this was achieved and had the effect of reducing demand, it was anticipated from the start that a substantial proportion of it must be passed on in increased prices. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, it was recognised in the policy statements on prices and incomes, that it was one of the grounds upon which it would be legitimate to increase prices. However, it is an interesting reflection that it is about 50 per cent. of people who have reacted to the tax in that way.

Mr. David Mitchell: If the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the main purpose of the tax was to raise a substantial sum of money—I think that the expression he used was "a major increase"—in taxation in the Budget last year, how can he square that with the assurances given a few weeks before the Budget, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues were appealing for support in the country, and when the Chancellor said that he had no intention of making major increases in taxation in his Budget, to contradict things which the Conservatives were saying were likely to happen if a Labour Government were elected? There is a complete contradiction between the grounds on which his party was elected and the explanation that he has just given.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman is picking me up on the word "major". I do not want to quarrel with him about words in that definition.
The amount involved for this tax is approximately £200 million in a full year. The effect in the first year was greater because of what has been called the "forced loan" aspect and the delay in the repayment of premiums. It has been recognised all along that this is a substantial sum and, although there was a quarrel about the timing, no one quarrelled about the judgment of the amount which needed to be raised in last year's Budget to reduce the pressure of demand. If it was not to be done in this way, the alternative would have been to increase other and existing taxes which already weigh heavily upon people in other sectors.
I find considerable support and comfort in the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given as to the effect of the tax. It shows that it has had the effect that a certain amount has been passed on in prices but that, as we always said would be the case, there are other ways in which employers seek to cushion the effect of the tax, absorb it and meet it other than by increases in prices.
The hon. Gentleman touched on a number of other familiar points in this connection. He referred to the administrative costs involved in the premium payments or rebates and suggested that it would be much cheaper and simpler to introduce new National Insurance stamps. I can assure him that that is not the case. From an administrative point of view, the machinery which has been adopted is a much simpler one, and it is a remarkably cheap tax to collect. If one compares it with any of the other main taxes—and I gave the figures recently in answer to a Written Question—the cost of collection is lower than that of the average Customs and Excise tax, which, in turn, is very much lower than the cost of collecting the Inland Revenue taxes such as Income Tax and Corporation Tax. Although it may be a nuisance for employers to be taxed and repaid in this way, it is not right to say that it is administratively a laborious and expensive machinery.
The hon. Gentleman looks perplexed. The reason for it is that there is an existing machinery for collecting stamps for National Insurance purposes with verifiable categories. I am sure that the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), with her experience, will know that to add to the multiplicity of categories for the purpose of stamp collection would create tremendous problems within her former Ministry. It was found much simpler to graft on machinery to that which the Ministry of Labour has with its Standard of Industrial Classifications to make premium payments and refunds in the neutral sector rather than trying to do it through the machinery of the National Insurance stamp.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the criticism which is often made about the position of transport and warehouse workers whose employment gives liability to tax in some sectors, to refund in others and to premiums in the manufacturing


sector. He said that this is anomalous and illogical. However, it depends on one's viewpoint. One of the purposes of the tax is deliberately to make a selective discrimination as between the manufacturing sector and the service sector. Once the number of qualifying employees is satisfied to bring an employer within the relevant sector, there is no reason why the employers of transport and warehouse workers should not be relieved from liability just as are employers of office workers and others who might themselves be non-qualifying workers.
The hon. Gentleman says that this has many distorting effects and that it now pays manufacturers to set up their own distribution machinery instead of using hauliers. The effect of the tax in relation to that would be purely marginal, however. It may be that it is profitable in the interests of the employer to set up his own distribution machinery. If so, he will do so. But I should have thought that the amount of the 7s. 6d. premium would be a very small factor to take into account in making a decision whether or not to embark on having one's own transport fleet.
The hon. Gentleman referred to difficulties of people who are doing beneficial

work of a quasi-charitable nature and who do not succeed in qualifying as charities. There are some borderline cases both ways which one might like to see dealt with differently. During our debates some of my hon. Friends were criticising the effect of this tax on establishments like Eton and other public schools. What it amounts to is saying that present legal definitions of charities, which date back to the times of Queen Elizabeth I, are not satisfactory in the modern age. I would not quarrel with that, but it is not something which can be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Finance Bill.
Other people have given thought and attention to the problem, but I am not aware that anyone has yet come up with a very satisfactory alternative way of drawing a line between what are and what are not charities. From a fiscal point of view, registered charities are a definable class with which we can treat. We could not possibly take on board the problem of having to decide which other worthy bodies should be treated as charities—

It being One o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting until half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Orders of the Day — NEW WRIT

For Brierley Hill, in the room of John Ellis Talbot, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS

SAINT MARY-LE-PARK, BATTERSEA BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — EAST KILBRIDE BURGH BILL

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — BATH UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY BILL [Lords]

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (No. 2) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Kirkcaldy Hospital (Accident Control Centre)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received with regard to the decision ratified by the South-East Scotland Hospital Board to make Kirkcaldy the hospital control centre for multiple major accidents in the St. Andrews area; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): My right hon. Friend has received one representation. This arrangement is not new. Dependent on the number of casualties involved in a major accident, the accident units are expected to help each other, and in the case of a major accident at St. Andrews the Kirkcaldy control centre could be expected to arrange for Dundee Royal Infirmary to take some of the casualties.

Sir J. Gilmour: Is it not true that if someone suffers an accident but is able

to call his own doctor he is able to go where he likes, whereas if he is unfortunate enough to become unconscious he is whisked away to a hospital which is possibly not nearly so satisfactory from the point of view of family visiting and many other considerations? Could not this matter be further considered?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman's distinction is not the right one. The right distinction is between ordinary accidents involving a small number of casualties, perhaps only one, and major accidents, The arrangements which I have described apply only to major accidents.

Sugar Beet

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the acreage of sugar beet likely to be sown in the factory area of the Cupar Sugar Factory in the season 1967; and whether he is satisfied that the present price structure for the growing of beet in Scotland is adequate.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): The British Sugar Corporation expects about 7,000 acres to be sown. As to the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the guaranteed price for beet has now been raised by 2s. 6d. I consider that the present price structure for beet-growing in Scotland is reasonable having regard to the subsidy on transport.

Sir J. Gilmour: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the Price Review, arable farmers in the east of Scotland in sugar beet-growing areas are worse off financially than they were before and it is now essential that he and his right hon. Friend should give extra money for the sugar beet crop, because the sugar factory is losing money and this is going the wrong way about helping the industry?

Mr. Buchan: That is an extraordinary question to be put by a Member of the Opposition, which reduced the transport subvention in 1963, whereupon the amount of sugar at 15,000 tons began to drop alarmingly. We have increased the transport subvention overall to about two-thirds with an additional 2s. 6d. this year. We should await the effects of this.

Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I beg to ask leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

White Fish (Prices Scheme)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had regarding a minimum prices scheme for white fish; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchan: The representations my right hon. Friend has received related to the draft scheme published by the White Fish Authority on 3rd February. The Authority has informed the Government within the last week that, having regard to the objections lodged, it does not intend to proceed with the scheme. The Authority has, however, told us that it still believes a statutory minimum prices scheme with Exchequer financial support is desirable, and my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will consider the situation that has now arisen.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that decision will be largely welcomed by the Scottish inshore fishermen? Will he bear in mind that if the White Fish Authority were to bring forward a new scheme some Government help and subvention will be greatly welcomed by the industry?

Mr. Buchan: Whether the White Fish Authority brings forward a scheme is for the Authority, but we are keeping the matter under review.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the White Fish Authority has again called for a Treasury subvention? Surely this is the essential answer to the problem.

Mr. Buchan: We have, of course, noted that point, and we recognise that this is the Authority's view. We are now looking at the new situation which has arisen as a result.

Local Government Staffs (Pay)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the award for Scottish local government staffs will be paid.

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has now given to local authorities in Scotland about the payment of wage awards to their clerical and manual worker employees.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): As regards manual workers, the N.J.I.C. were informed on 28th March that the Government accepted the recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes that the pay of local government manual workers in Scotland could be increased with effect from 6th March, 1967.
As regards the administrative, professional, technical and clerical grades, the N.J.I.C. has today been informed that the Government accept that the increases which it has proposed satisfy the new criteria set out in the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy after 30th June, 1967, and that the proposals may be implemented as from 1st July, 1967.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this decision will at last end the discrimination against Scotland and will be welcomed there, and that we are glad that at this late stage he has at last been prepared to stand up and help people in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. We debated this fully. Within the rules laid down in the last White Paper, there was no discrimination against Scotland. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that if it had been possible to accept the proposal which was first put forward there would have been an in-built discrimination—if he likes to call it that—which would have lasted a year.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that his belated statement is welcome? Will he assure the House that never again will he treat workers in Scotland so shabbily?

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman would listen properly to Government policy, he would not make statements like that. The new criteria were published on 23rd March, and on 28th March the N.J.I.C. asked for the proposals to be reconsidered; the letter was sent to them this morning.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend's reference to manual workers


getting the increase from March include the electricians?

Mr. Ross: It includes what I said—the manual workers covered by the N.J.I.C.

Mr. G. Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the different treatment of Scottish as opposed to English local government staffs has been an anomaly or not?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman knows that we argued this point in a full debate. They were covered by the same rules and dealt with in exactly the same way. It so happens—it was unfortunate—that the local authority people concerned could not reach an agreement to put forward an acceptable proposal until about 16th September.

Mr. Dewar: Has my right hon. Friend any information about whether, in view of this welcome statement, N.A.L.G.O. is likely to continue with its ballot to decide about strike action?

Mr. Ross: I have no information to offer my hon. Friend on that matter.

Emigration

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of probable emigration from Scotland in each of the years 1967 to 1970.

Mr. Ross: No estimates of net emigration losses have been made for each of these years because such losses result from a great many factors affecting both inward and outward movements of population, and it is impossible to make any reliable prediction of the net result of all these for a single year.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that figures which emerged only last week show that the population of Scotland has fallen yet again, and that this constant trend of falling population and rising emigration flies in the face of all his promises and those of his hon. Friends to the people of Scotland?

Mr. Ross: It was predictable that the emigration while hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office—400,000 people leaving Scotland—would have a long-term effect on population. It is a pity

that the hon. Gentleman did not raise his voice about the matter at that time.

Winter Sports Facilities

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to enable the Forestry Commission to assist the development of ski slopes, ancillary winter sports facilities and access to them in the Cairngorm area.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): The Forestry Commission has already helped to develop winter sports in the Cairngorms by leasing land to the Cairngorms Winter Sports Development Board, by providing a camping site near Loch Morlich which is open all the year round, and by contributing towards the cost of improving the access road past Glenmore Lodge.
Wider and specific powers for the Commission to provide facilities of this kind are being sought in the Countryside (Scotland) Bill. The hon. Member will, however, appreciate that these activities are secondary to the Commission's main functions.

Mr. Campbell: Is there not a great deal more that the Forestry Commission could do, as it owns the relevant land, to co-ordinate activities and provide for the increasing number of skiers without needing or waiting for Clause 57 of the Countryside Bill?

Dr. Mabon: I think that the hon. Gentleman is anticipating the negotiations which are going on. It is true that arguments are going on about nominal rents, and so on, and the question whether or not land may be sold. I think that we ought to wait to see how the negotiations go. The Forestry Commission ought to be given credit for what it has done so far.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware that one simple, cheap measure which would be helpful out of all proportion to the cost is for hoteliers themselves, in places like Aviemore, to arrange to have "full-up" notices, because many travellers complain that they have to call at seven or eight hotels before they can get accommodation?

Dr. Mabon: That is a somewhat different question, which I shall pass on to my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

Public Service Transport

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the machinery of consultation between his Department and the Ministry of Transport for ensuring that adequate alternative public service transport is made available before passenger rail services in Scotland are withdrawn; and how far such machinery ensures that such alternative public service transport is maintained thereafter.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Statutory responsibility for these matters rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, but there is consultation between the Scottish Office and her Department about alternative services. Such alternative services are maintained for as long as they are needed, arrangements to this end being made by my right hon. Friend and the British Railways Board.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Transport has refused to provide bus service for passengers from Forfar direct to Taybridge station in Dundee after the rail service is withdrawn or closed? As this alternative service is essential, will the hon. Gentleman intervene and use his authority to get this service established?

Dr. Mabon: I shall willingly take up this point. What, I think, the hon. Gentleman has to recognise, and I am sure he does, is that we are working within a Statute laid down by the previous Administration. It is very difficult to follow it out directly without at the same time having to supplement it with the things that we have done in consulting the Consultative Groups and in taking the very good points made by hon. Members in this House where statutory responsibility is not adequate, and I am sorry that the 1962 Act is framed as it is.

Mr. David Steel: Although the Ministry of Transport has statutory responsibility, in the case of the Border railway line it is the Scottish Office which will be regarded as having moral responsibility for the closure or otherwise of this line in view of the economic development of the region.

Dr. Mabon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has moral responsibility for every reverse that we have in Scotland.

I wish that he received moral credit for every success that he has.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Farming Prospects

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what he estimates to be the prospects for Scottish farming following the Agricultural Price Review; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ross: The prospects are favourable. As the Price Review White Paper (Cmnd. 3229) made clear, the present award should give the industry the confidence and the means needed for a further significant advance towards the attainment of the selective expansion programme. Scottish farmers can make a substantial contribution particularly in the expansion of meat production.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the advantages specified in the Review for the production of meat will be adequate to persuade farmers at present growing cereals to switch to meat production once again?

Mr. Ross: I do not know whether it will have the effect of causing a switch, but it will give cause for reconsideration in respect of the benefits which lie therein. Bearing in mind the fact that 80 per cent. of Scotland's production is in livestock and livestock products, and the fact that the Price Review was weighted in their favour, I think that it gives an indication of the benefits that there must be for Scotland in the Review.

Fishery Protection Squadron

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure the continued protection of the Scottish inshore fishing fleet following the changes announced recently for the Fishery Protection Squadron.

Mr. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the fact that the duties of the Fishery Protection Squadrons will be taken over by vessels of the Home Fleet will affect the Scottish Squadron.

Mr. Buchan: The recent change in the command structure of the Navy's Fishery Protection Squadron will not affect the standard of protection given in Scottish waters either by the Navy or by my Department's fishery cruisers. These will continue to operate exactly as before.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of the lack of confidence which arose in the fishing industry following this change came about because of the Government's habit of not consulting those whom their decisions most directly affect? Can we be assured that the personnel of the Fishery Protection Squadron will be experienced men long enough in the job to know the details of the work that they have to do?

Mr. Buchan: I think that to some extent they were misled by wrong statements in the Press at the time. There has been no general dissatisfaction expressed by the industry in Scotland, and during my recent discussions with fishermen in the hon. Gentleman's area this question did not arise and no doubts were expressed.
As regards the second part of the question, I am satisfied that the arrangements which we had, and which were working satisfactorily, will continue to do so under sufficiently skilled direction.

Mr. Baker: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, under the new arrangements, H.M.S. "Belton" will be withdrawn from Scotland, and if so, by what means the Fishery Protection Squadron will be augmented in times of stress as in the past?

Mr. Buchan: The duties of H.M.S. "Belton" will not be affected and she will continue to be assigned as before. One of the advantages of the new structure is that we shall be able to call on the Home Fleet.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my hon. Friend realise that the vast expanse of sea which the protection vessels are expected to supervise is too much for surface vessels, and should not they have more assistance from the air? Will my hon. Friend take steps to see that they receive this help?

Mr. Buchan: I was dreading my hon. and learned Friend suggesting that there should be surveillance by submarines. We

bear in mind all kinds of possible modern means of assisting the surface fleet in its duties.

Mr. Noble: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that his own Department's fishery cruisers are adequate in number to deal with the very much increased fishery limits which now apply?

Mr. Buchan: I am aware of the difficulty which has been caused by the new fishing limits, but so far we have found no reason for dissatisfaction. We are, however, as always keeping the matter under consideration.

Flooded Areas (Financial Assistance)

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the factors he takes into consideration when deciding what financial assistance he will provide for an area subsequent to serious damage by flooding.

Mr. Ross: The decisions which I make in these situations are governed in the first place by my statutory powers. Within the limitations they impose, I take into account the nature and scale of the damage in relation to the area as a whole and to its economy.

Mr. Monro: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the repair of sea banks and roads in south-west Scotland is far beyond the resources of householders and fishermen? Can he give 100 per cent. grants before further damage occurs?

Mr. Ross: I do not think so. I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, quite apart from his part of the world, we have been unable to do this elsewhere. I assure him that there have been other cases where, if we followed his advice, we might have been expected to do this, in Ayrshire and round Glasgow as well, as a result of floods which have occurred.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are no farms in Cathcart but that plenty of distress and damage has been caused by flooding? Can householders also be considered for any form of assistance?

Mr. Ross: I think that the hon. Gentleman should address himself to the rather definitive answer given by, I think, a


Home Secretary in the previous Administration, in about 1960, when he made it clear that the Government could not undertake this kind of compensation in respect of householders but that it was a matter of personal insurance.

University Graduates (Agriculture)

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure there are sufficient university graduates in agriculture, qualifying each year in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that there is no shortage at present of students graduating in agriculture from Scottish universities, and he does not anticipate any shortage developing.

Mr. Monro: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is grave concern that Glasgow University may be forced to discontinue its agricultural course? Can he say definitely that this will not happen and that there will be no detriment to the future of the West of Scotland College?

Mr. Millan: I know that this proposal has caused concern. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on it at the moment as it is under discussion between the university and the U.G.C.

Hill Farmers

Mr. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the Price Review award he estimates will be received by farmers in Scotland, generally, and what proportion will go to hill farmers in particular.

Mr. Ross: The answer to the first part is about one-eighth. The answer to the second part is more than £1 million from production grants, and a considerable benefit, which cannot be precisely assessed, from the increased price guarantees and from the introduction of an option under the winter keep scheme.

Mr. Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his optimistic feelings are not shared by many of the hill farmers in Scotland, particularly in view of the extremely bad season last autumn? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that these points will be followed

up in the future so that hill farmers can get back on to their feet?

Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I discussed this very fully with the farmers at Dunblane last week. I hope that I was able to persuade them that the extra 2s. per ewe on the hill sheep subsidy, the winter keep option which would mean an additional 1s. 6d. if they were to opt for it, and the decision to change over to giving information about what would be available for next year gives a fair indication that we are going as far as possible, not to meet their troubles with compensation payments, but with an overall plan in respect of the development of hill sheep farming.

Mr. James Davidson: With reference to hill farmers, can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is taking to see that a comprehensive land use survey of upland areas is being carried out, with particular regard to the present use in many cases of stock-bearing land for forestry, when there are thousands of acres of land unused for forestry but eminently suitable for it?

Mr. Ross: That is an entirely different question, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that such surveys are being carried out in particular areas.

Mr. Noble: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that though, as he says, the extra awards in the Price Review for the hill farming section are certainly welcome, the proof of the pudding will be when the markets start next autumn? Will he keep rather closely in touch with his colleagues to see that in this period, which is apt to be a glut period, extra meat is not imported and so depress prices, as happened last autumn?

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in the autumn of last year there was a concatenation of circumstances which we certainly do not think will be repeated this year. But we will certainly watch events.

Scottish Economy (White Paper)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now revise the target for new jobs of 134,000 in six years proposed in the White Paper on the Scottish Economy.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: No, Sir.

Mr. Campbell: Is it not clear that many more than this number of jobs will be needed? As the White Paper records, on the same page 9, that a large number of new jobs—157,000—were created in the previous four years of Conservative Government, will the Secretary of State not now raise his sights?

Dr. Mabon: Progress so far is that we have increased employment by 21,000, taking mid-1964 with mid-1966, against an actual fall in employment in the two years prior to mid-1964. In terms of industrial development, the Government have done quite remarkably in the years 1965 and 1966. We have given approval of an area of 19·2 million sq. ft., with potential employment for over 43,000 people. That represents an increase over 1963 of 75 per cent. and, over 1964, of 45 per cent.—really quite a good record.

Pharmacists (Midlothian)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fully qualified pharmacists there are in the county of Midlothian; and if he is satisfied they will cope with demands of existing population.

Mr. Millan: There are 26 pharmacies dispensing National Health Service prescriptions in Midlothian, at each of which there is at least one qualified pharmacist. I have no reason to believe that these pharmacies cannot meet the needs of the population of this area.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great disquiet and anxiety amongst certain of my constituents about future services? Will he not consider meeting the pharmacists of the county of Midlothian, through the medium of the Pharmaceutical Society, in order to allay some of the fears and anxieties?

Mr. Millan: The pharmacists have not expressed any desire to meet me on this matter. I know that there is some concern—for example, in Rosewell—but I have already written to my hon. Friend on this topic and I do not think that at the moment any special steps are needed.

Crimes of Violence

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many crimes involving violence were reported

in 1966; and what were the comparable figures in 1961 and 1956, respectively.

Mr. Buchan: There were 2,939 crimes of violence made known to the police in 1966. The figures for 1961 and 1956 are 1,661 and 884.

Mr. Taylor: Will not the Under-Secretary of State agree that these figures are frightening and appalling, and will he say precisely what he intends to do about them? In particular, what steps does he intend to take to fill gaps in the police force?

Mr. Buchan: I am sorry but I missed part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I accept that the figures require a great deal of consideration. The main way of dealing with this matter is by reorientating the direction of police action, and this is already being done, especially as affects young people.

Mr. MacArthur: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the best deterrent to crimes of violence and crime of all kinds is a greater risk of detection? Will he therefore take further steps than have been taken so far to bring the establishment of police forces in Scotland to strength? It is there that the weakness lies, and it is there that action is needed.

Mr. Buchan: I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman says, and we are doing all we can to increase establishments.

Part-time Education

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children at school in Scotland are receiving only part-time education; and what percentage of this total is in respect of Glasgow schoolchildren.

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children in Glasgow were in part-time education in each of the last five years.

Mr. Millan: The incidence of part-time education in Glasgow varies greatly according to the time of year. At the beginning of March, when it is generally greatest, the number of pupils losing more than two hours of instruction per


week, in each of the last five years, was as follows:


1963
…
…
…
3,297


1964
…
…
…
1,999


1965
…
…
…
3,674


1966
…
…
…
2,128


1967
…
…
…
3,487

The latest figure for late March 1967 shows a drop to 2,960 which represents 65 per cent. of the Scottish total of 4,542 at that date.

Mr. Taylor: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a very serious situation? Will he say precisely why he has had the Roberts Committee's Report for nine months and has not even indicated whether the Government support it or oppose it?

Mr. Millan: Of course it is a serious situation, but, as I think the figures demonstrate, it is, happily, not a deteriorating situation—though I may say that this is a very little comfort to the parents of the children involved and I do not want to sound in the least complacent about it. On the Roberts Report, it is only within the last two or three months that we have had the comments of all the interested organisation on both the teachers' and employers' sides. These comments are by no means unanimous, but we are certainly considering this matter very carefully indeed.

Mr. Woodburn: Could not my hon. Friend perhaps do something to discourage the campaign of almost misrepresentation against highly qualified people who are serving, and thereby helping to remedy this grievance? Could he make full use of otherwise well educated people to fill this gap, even though they may not be certificated in the ordinary way?

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend will probably know that at present the General Teaching Council has a working party dealing with the problem of uncertificated teachers. That working party seems to be making very good progress, and we shall naturally consider very carefully indeed any report it makes. This is a very difficult problem, and we are very anxious to get some agreed solution to it.

Mr. MacArthur: Will not the Under-Secretary recognise that this is really quite a monstrous case of social injustice in Scotland? Will he not try to restore

a proper sense of priority in Scottish education? Will he drop his idea to abolish fee-paying schools and to force a pattern of comprehensive education on local authorities—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Millan: As far as the supplementary question is in order at all, Mr. Speaker, I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that the current figure I quoted is about the same as the figure in 1963, when the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends were in power. There is no adverse trend. I do not wish to underestimate the seriousness of this problem in any way, but, equally, it is very bad indeed to exaggerate, particularly for party political purposes, the difficulties we have, especially in Glasgow.

Mr. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Spaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the subject on the Adjournment.

Emigrants (Statistics)

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consult with the Registrar General for Scotland, and local authorities, with a view to devising a scheme to elicit information regarding the age, sex, occupation, professional skills and qualifications. years of experience, destination, reasons for migrating, etcetera, from individuals and families migrating from Scotland to other parts of the United Kingdom and overseas, by means of a voluntary questionnaire on the lines of the sample sent to him by the honourable Member for Edinburgh, North.

Mr. Ross: No, Sir. To obtain the range of information suggested by the hon. Gentleman it would first be necessary to identify the emigrants to all destinations, and this cannot be done.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is the Secretary of State aware that I deeply regret his failure even to try to tackle this problem, which I considered to be perfectly capable of being tackled?

Mr. Ross: I think that the hon. Member had better recognise that what he is asking us to do is impossible.

Mr. Noble: Instead of regarding it as impossible, will not the Secretary of State study, with universities and other organisations and people, whether it is not possible to get information on this very important subject? One cannot, of course, have a whole range of information about everyone, but until we know more about emigration, its causes, and the people going, we must find it very hard to solve the problem.

Mr. Ross: A certain amount of study has been done on this subject by the Scottish Economic Council and others, and at the present time an inter-Departmental Committee is discussing how we can improve our statistics on emigration. But if the right hon. Gentleman looks closely at the Question, I think that he will agree that what is asked is impossible.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday there appeared on the Order Paper a Question, identical with this one, from Carmarthen?

Mr. Ross: That may well be so, but it does not help me to answer this Question.

Edinburgh Inner Ring Road

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to announce his decision on the Inner Ring Road proposal as contained in Edinburgh Corporation's Quinquennial Review.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: After my right hon. Friend has received and had time to consider the report of the public inquiry which is still going on.

Earl of Dalkeith: Can the hon. Gentleman still give no indication of when that may be? Does he realise that great financial hardship is suffered by many citizens so long as uncertainty is prolonged?

Dr. Mabon: I think that is true, but even though the hon. Member himself has had time to attend the inquiry, we must wait for others who wish to attend and the reporter is the best person to decide when Part II of the inquiry should come to an end. The Secretary of State has no control over this matter and it would be wrong to express a view on it.

Graduate Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, with a view to encouraging university graduates into the teaching profession, he will pay them the first-year salary scale as soon as they enter the college of education; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), on 19th December last.—[Vol. 738, c. 235.]

Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that English graduates entering the teaching profession after university do receive a first-year salary? Does he not think that Scottish graduates who are prepared to enter training colleges should receive similar consideration?

Mr. Millan: I do not know whether the suggestion is that we should not have teacher training for graduates. We would not want, nor do I think would teachers want, to draw too close parallels with what happens in England. Many other graduates require training and this proposition would have very considerable implications. We do not feel that at the moment we could possibly implement it.

The Arts (Government Expenditure)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what Government expenditure there has been on the arts in Scotland in each of the last three years.

Mr. Millan: Government expenditure on the arts, including the national museums, library and galleries, was as follows: in 1964–65, £696,000; in 1965–66, £798,000; in 1966–67, £1,058,000.

Mr. Hannan: While appreciating this great improvement over previous years, will my hon. Friend nevertheless approach local authorities about the provision of suitable halls and accommodation for the presentation of performances by Scottish opera which is enjoying some popularity in Scotland at the moment? Will my hon. Friend consider making a gesture in response to the generous action of Glasgow Corporation in rebuilding its old city hall at a cost of £200,000 as a centre for the Scottish National Orchestra?

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend will be aware that under the auspices of the Arts Council there is now a housing of the arts fund and any applications for particular projects should be directed to the Arts Council. This is something entirely new, and I am glad to say that already some local authorities are taking advantage of it.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Does the hon. Gentleman think that all this money is well spent?

Mr. Millan: Yes.

Approved School Accommodation

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what projects are presently in hand to improve the level of provision of approved school accommodation in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: About 60 additional places for boys should become available within the next few months, and a further 170 places later.

Mr. Hannan: Can my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that in the consideration of these provisions he is bearing in mind the White Paper, "Social Work and the Community"? Will he also bear in mind the paragraphs on the use of this term? When can we have a debate on that White Paper?

Mr. Millan: The question of a debate is not for me, but we certainly have very much in mind the fact that the White Paper, "Social Work and the Community", has very considerable implications for all kinds of residential accommodation. The figures I have quoted, taking into account all the existing approved school places, will represent a very considerable improvement.

Health Centres

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in the development of health centres in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: There are four health centres already in operation. Two others, at Cumbernauld and Langholm, are under construction and will be opened later this year; and the building of the first health centre in Livingston will begin

shortly. The planning of several other health centres has reached an advanced stage, and in total more than 50 projects are at present under consideration.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that this probably is the best piece of news which the House has had for a considerable time and that many hon. Members on this side of the House have campaigned for many years for the introduction of health centres?

Mr. Millan: I am glad to hear that. My hon. Friend will be equally glad to know that the general practitioners in Scotland are very anxious to press ahead with proposals for health centres and we want to encourage them as much as we can within the necessary limitations of finance, the financial provisions for which have now been very considerably increased.

Mr. David Steel: Can the hon. Gentleman prod the regional hospital boards into speedy action, because I know of one instance where medical practitioners went ahead and had a separate health centre, which is undesirable?

Mr. Millan: If the hon. Gentleman will give details of that, I will look into it. This is a tripartite matter involving hospital boards, general practitioners and local authorities.

Mr. Steele: In view of the redevelopment of the town centre of Dumbarton and the desire of the town council to get on with its health centre, can my hon. Friend say whether there is any hope of that health centre being improved shortly?

Mr. Millan: I have been in communication with my hon. Friend about the Dumbarton project, but it has not yet a firm place in the programme. I will write to my hon. Friend about that.

Hospitals (Geriatric Beds)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to increase the number of geriatric beds in Scottish hospitals.

Mr. Millan: Schemes at present in progress or being planned should provide 680 additional beds by the end of this year, and up to 1,430 beds, including some replacement beds, by 1970. In the longer term there will be geriatric assessment


and treatment untis at all the new district general hospitals now being planned, and day accommodation is also being provided at suitable hospitals.

Mr. Maclennan: Is my hon. Friend aware that this amounts to a welcome step forward, but is he satisfied that the measures being taken are sufficient to meet the growing needs of the elderly population?

Mr. Millan: On the present basis of caluculation, which is 15 geriatric beds for every 1,000 of the population over 65 years of age, the requirement is approximately 8,600 beds, and the present provision is approximately 8,000. As my hon. Friend will have noted, there are proposals for 1,400 beds by 1970, which should meet the estimated demand then, but, of course, the provision is not necessarily equally good everywhere in Scotland and at the moment there are patches where the provision is not satisfactory.

Mr. James Davidson: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is a very great need for a type of accommodation somewhere between that provided in old folks' homes and that of geriatric beds in hospitals and that many patients fall into this category? They are taken into old folks' homes where there is not proper provision for them. Is the hon. Gentleman taking steps to deal with this aspect of the problem?

Mr. Millan: This is largely a matter for co-operation between local health authorities and hospital boards. If the hon. Member has particular difficulties in mind, I shall be glad to take them up, but there is need for a whole range of accommodation of different kinds.

Colleges of Education

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what expansion to colleges of education in Scotland is planned to meet the needs of men taking the three years training course for primary teachers.

Mr. Ross: To increase the number of training places in the country as a whole, 600 additional places are being provided through extensions at Callendar Park and Craigie Colleges of Education, estimated together to cost £1 million. It is not intended, however, to concentrate men in these two colleges.

Mr. Hamilton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his reply, but is he satisfied that we shall have sufficient primary teachers by 1970? Is he satisfied the expansion now taking place is sufficient to meet requirements?

Mr. Ross: Yes, I certainly hope that it will be. I think my hon. Friend will appreciate the move we made to enlarge the reservoir from which we can draw teachers for the three-year course. The statement I have made today is a proof of our determination so to do.

Apprentices (Day Release)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of apprentices in Scotland is now enrolled in some form of day- or block-release education, giving boys and girls separately.

Mr. Millan: Separate figures for apprentices are not available, but of all young persons under 18 in insured employment, 24·1 per cent. of males and 4·7 per cent. of females were enrolled in day-release or block-release vocational courses in session 1965–66.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that some industrialists are still very loth to send apprentices for further education? Is he aware, too, that some industrialists are still not training their own apprentices? Have the Government any proposal in mind for dealing with this serious problem, because we must have the craftsmen necessary to sustain the country's economy?

Mr. Millan: We have this very much in mind, and it is a condition of the levy grant scheme under the Industrial Training Act that schemes stipulate release—either day-release or release in some other way. We at present look upon this as being much the most fruitful way of increasing the numbers attending day-release courses, where we certainly still need a considerable extension to achieve a satisfactory position.

Hospital Building (Expenditure)

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of expenditure on hospital building in Scotland over the past three years; and at what rate he estimates that this expenditure will rise over the next few years.

Mr. Millan: Expenditure on hospital building, including equipment fees, etc.,


in Scotland was £8·5 million in 1964–65 and £9·7 million in 1965–66. On present forecasts expenditure will be about £11·6 million in the current financial year; £12·4 million in 1967–68; and I hope over £13 million annually in 1968–69, 1969–70 and 1970–71.

Mr. Bence: Is my hon. Friend aware that for the past 10 years there has been considerable dissatisfaction in the Scottish hospital services at the failure of previous Governments to satisfy the needs of hospitals? Is he satisfied that this tremendously increased figure will overcome the deficiences of the Conservative Administration in providing extra hospital facilities?

Mr. Millan: I do not know that it will overcome them by 1970, but this figure represents a very considerable increase and I hope that it will enable us to make up some of the lost ground.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Under-Secretary aware that we all hope that the Government will be able to afford this money in the next few years? Is he also aware that one of the best ways of incurring increased expenditure on hospital building is to close small but otherwise perfectly adequate and efficient units?

Mr. Millan: I think that we discussed the hospital the hon. Gentleman has in mind in an Adjournment debate. I have nothing to add to what I then said about Ellon Hospital.

Tay Valley

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further developments are planned for the region of the Tay Valley.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: A feasibility study of the Tayside region will shortly be put in hand in implementation of the plans outlined in the White Paper on the Scottish Economy, and of the Government statement last June about feasibility studies of Tayside, Severnside and Humberside.

Mr. Doig: We welcome this Answer. We should like to know if planning consultants have yet been engaged for furthering these plans and who is responsible for engaging the consultants. Is it the Department's responsibility, or is it the responsibility of the Tayside Development Group?

Dr. Mabon: The study itself is to be carried out by consultants appointed by the Secretary of State. The Tayside Consultative Group will be closely associated with it from the outset. The Secretary of State will shortly make this appointment, it is hoped, and I have been asked by him to visit the Tayside Consultative Group and discuss the matter with it.

Sir J. Gilmour: As the future of the Tay Valley must largely depend on transport facilities, would the hon. Gentleman take steps at once to make the trunk road from Melville Crossroads to Tay Bridge eligible for a 100 per cent. grant?

Dr. Mabon: It is true that we act quicker than the Conservative Government, but we must consult various people. The proposal was put to us only recently. There are other consequences involved from the report. I will not comment on it. We are discussing the matter.

School Building

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the allocations for school building in Scotland in 1967–68 and for the succeeding two years.

Mr. Ross: As the Answer includes a table of figures, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Bence: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not indulge in the practice indulged in by previous Secretaries of State of cutting the school-building programme year after year, thus setting back the final solution of the Scottish school-building programme?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend can rely on the experience of the last few years as showing that, in times of difficulty and stress, the one thing we do not do is to take it out on hospitals and schools. When he sees the allocations in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that they are substantial.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the Secretary of State aware that we on this side judge this Government more by performance than by promise? Is he aware further that the value of primary and secondary school building under construction at the end of last year had fallen by nearly £4 million? Is he aware further that the number of primary and secondary school


places approved last year was only 30,000 compared with 47,000 in 1964? Is he aware—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough to be aware of.

Mr. Ross: What the hon. Gentleman obviously is not aware of is the progress we have made.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Answer.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should await, as should the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), the publication of the annual report, which will give far better figures for this year than he would probably hope to see.

Following is the table of figures:


INVESTMENT ALLOCATIONS FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL BUILDING


Education Authority
1967/68
1968/69
1969/70
Total


£000
£000
£000
£000


Aberdeen
660
680
660†
2,000


Angus
675
560
130
1,365


Argyll
351
131
62
544


Ayr
1,879
1,879
879*
4,637


Banff
600
150
100
850


Berwick
25
—
105
130


Bute
26
57
—
83


Caithness
110
170
80
360


Clackmannan
750
275
—
1,025


Dumfries
367
266
117
750


Dunbarton
1,767
1,767
1,066*
4,600


East Lothian
880
240
130
1,250


Fife
1,500
1,500
1,000†
4,000


Inverness
400
540
400
1,340


Kincardine
525
100
260
885


Kirkcud-bright
45
85
65
195


Lanark
3,036
3,239
1,665*
7,940


Midlothian
1,100
1,000
l,000†
3,100


Moray and Nairn
105
550
45
700


Orkney
20
430
—
450


Peebles
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL


Perth and Kinross
760
380
130†
1,270


Renfrew
1,823
1,824
1,073*
4,720


Ross and Cromarty
500
600
50†
1,150


Roxburgh
180
210
200
590


Selkirk
180
60
350
590


Stirling
800
800
800t
2,400


Sutherland
—
150
—
150


West Lothian
900
1,500
500*
2,900


Wigtown
257
86
6
349


Zetland
230
360
—
590


Burghs


Aberdeen
750
750
25†
1,525


Dundee
990
990
825†
2,805


Edinburgh
1,800
1,800
1,200
4,800


Glasgow
4,500
4,500
4,000
13,000


Total
28,491
27,629
16,923
73,043


* Part year allocation only.


† Yearly allocation but subject to later review.

Remand Home Facilities

Mr. Small: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been and are being taken to improve remand home facilities in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: A new remand home was recently opened by Dundee Corporation and another is about to be opened by Dunbartonshire County Council. Other homes, or extensions to homes, are under construction or are being planned by the local authorities for Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Lanarkshire.

Mr. Small: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, because there has been much public concern in many reports recently about the only alternative being prison. I hope that he will continue to make progress in terms of the supply of remand homes so that there is some form of disposal which does not entail someone going to prison.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that these proposals will give, along with the Dundee home, an extra 95 places, which makes a very substantial increase on the present accommodation of 223 places.

Mr. MacLennan: Will my hon. Friend give consideration to the question whether the existing psychiatric facilities at remand homes in Scotland are adequate and whether more consultant psychiatrists should be attached directly to these homes?

Mr. Millan: I doubt whether they need to be attached directly to these homes, but the general practice is that psychiatric advice is available where necessary.

Sport and Recreational Activities

Mr. Small: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the extent of Government financial assistance towards the encouragement of Scottish sport and recreational activities in each of the last three years.

Mr. Millan: The total grant given was as follows:

For recreational activities: in 1964–65 £213,000; 1965–66 £253,000; 1966–67 £286,000.
For sport: in 1964–65 £137,000; 1965–66 £190,000; 1966–67 £289,000.

The figures for 1966–67 are provisional.

Mr. Small: I am pleased to hear the reply.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have a question.

Mr. Small: You will have a question, Mr. Speaker. Can I have an assurance from my hon. Friend that the commitment to the Commonwealth Games in 1970 will not be taken at the expense of the local authorities in terms of recreation grants?

Mr. Millan: The question of any assistance to the Commonwealth Games is being separately considered.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: How much of the grant which is mentioned will be taken back in the form of the Selective Employment Tax?

Mr. Millan: Very little, if any.

Private Houses (Prices)

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will set up an inquiry into the causes of the apparent high prices of houses in the private sector in Scotland.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend is watching the position carefully, and if it seemed necessary he would ask the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee to take its previous investigation of this matter further.

Mr. Dewar: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there is quite a degree of evidence to suggest that house prices in Scotland are very high despite the undoubted lower site values and lower labour costs? In view of the considerable importance of housing in the industrial regeneration of Scotland and in attracting new industry to Scotland, is not there a strong case for keeping a close eye on this matter?

Dr. Mabon: That is why we had the initial investigation. I accept that the initial investigation is not completely

satisfactory. A number of points remain outstanding. This is why my right hon. Friend is most concerned about this and why, if he feels it necessary, he will ask the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee to carry it further. The Working Party between the Scottish Office and the builders in Scotland is keeping this matter under review, although the builders naturally sometimes take a different view from that of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. G. Campbell: Does the reluctance of the Minister of State to have an inquiry now arise because he is only too well aware that it is measures such as the Selective Employment Tax and the import surcharge which have mainly contributed to rising prices? Will he inquire into costs in the public sector, because few houses are sold here and therefore the prices are not relevant?

Dr. Mabon: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's second observation. I am sure that on reflection he must agree that, no matter who is the purchaser of the house, whether it is the occupier or the local authority, my hon. Friend's criticisms in that regard are perfectly valid. I do not accept the assertion that my right hon. Friend is reluctant to hold an inquiry and I would not accept that the two points mentioned were pertinent or solid factors in determining standard prices. There is some merit in pursuing parallel inquiries, in England, particularly south-east England, and Scotland to see why there is this difference in costs.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that answers, too, can be reasonably brief.

Hospital Pharmacists (Salaries)

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider revising the salary levels for hospital pharmacists in order to make them comparable with the sums earned by similarly qualified persons employed outside the National Health Service.

Mr. Millan: It is for the appropriate Whitley Council to initiate any review.

Mr. Dewar: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. However, does he not agree that there is considerable danger in a profession where remuneration in the National Health Service is on a scale of between £1,000 and £1,200 that pharmacists will be steadily drained from


the service into private practice where the remuneration is more satisfactory?

Mr. Millan: I would not accept that last proposition. My hon. Friend will know that there was a substantial salary increase in April, 1965. He will also be glad to know that in his own regional hospital board area there are no vacancies for pharmacists at present, which suggests that the service is attracting the required number.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of pharmacists in the hospital service has declined slightly over the last five years, and is he satisfied that there are sufficient to cope with the demands being made upon them?

Mr. Millan: I am not responsible for the last five years, but the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that in the last year there was an increase.

C.B.I. Survey (Industrial Trends)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration the Scottish Economic Planning Board has given to the Confederation of British Industry's February survey of industrial trends in Scotland, a copy of which has been sent to him, and, in particular, to its conclusions that the industrial investment outlook is now less encouraging in Scotland than it is in England.

Mr. Ross: The Board keeps itself closely informed of all indicators of industrial trends and prospects in Scotland, including the C.B.I.'s Survey.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is profoundly depressing that plant investment expectations in Scotland apparently fell between October and February when they rose in England? Is not that an indication of the total inadequacy of the Government's system of investment grants and of the hollowness of the Government's claim to have sheltered Scotland from the squeeze?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is hopelessly wrong. He will appreciate that this survey was before the recent announcement about investment grant. He must not overdo his pre-Budget posture of gloom. The survey itself

suggests that there was less pessimism in February than had been displayed in October. The fact that figures of industrial development in Scotland are now running at very high rates is itself something which will confound the pessimists.

Mr. Grimond: if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now to give certain rebates of Selective Employment Tax to areas of high unemployment, will the Secretary of Slate for Scotland represent to him that, welcome as that would be, there are many parts of Scotland with high unemployment where there is very little productive industry but many service industries, and that one of the best things the Chancellor can do is to relieve those industries of S.E.T.?

Mr. Ross: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will read with interest and carefully note what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Road Vehicle Drivers (Drink or Drugs)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps in the interests of road safety to inform drivers of all types of motoring vehicles that a person may be taken as unfit to drive if his ability to drive had been impaired through drink or drugs.

Mr. Ross: I believe that drivers generally are aware that by law a person is unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired by drink or drugs.

Mr. Rankin: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that in a recent case a person paid to administer the law of Scotland pleaded ignorance of its implications and was allowed free on that plea? Is not that rather a disturbing situation? How can he apply the law fairly when he himself has stated publicly that he does not understand it?

Mr. Ross: It would be quite wrong of me to comment on that case; but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk have promised a report to me on it in the near future.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member ought not to criticise Her Majesty's judges, except by means of a Motion on the Order Paper.
Later—

Mr. Rankin: Further to the point of order which I raised a little while ago, Mr. Speaker, I should like your guidance. If I criticised anyone in my supplementary question, it was not a judge but a citizen of Scotland who appeared before the court not as a judge but as a citizen.

Mr. Speaker: If that was so, I unreservedly apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I was simply stating what is a classic rule of the House. I unreservedly withdraw what I said to the hon. Gentleman.

Glasgow (Part-time Education)

Mr. Wright: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to deal with the circumstances which have led to the spread of part-time education in Glasgow schools.

Mr. Millan: Part-time education in Glasgow schools has not spread as compared, for example, with 1965 and earlier years. My right hon. Friend is taking active steps to increase the supply of qualified teachers generally and is considering possible ways of remedying the special problems of areas such as Glasgow. He is also keeping in touch with Glasgow Education Authority regarding measures of alleviation within the Authority's competence which it has been pursuing.

Mr. Wright: Is the hon. Gentleman fully aware that the spread of part-time education is now affecting the grammar schools not only in Glasgow, but in Scotland as a whole? What are the Government's intentions in this matter?

Mr. Millan: The problem in Glasgow, which is what the hon. Gentleman asked about, is very largely in the primary schools. Where there has been a problem in secondary schools, as, for example, in Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire, I am glad to be able to say that these troubles are strictly temporary. I have already answered questions about our attitude towards the Roberts Report.

North Sea Fisheries

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the danger to fish in the North

Sea reaching healthy maturity caused by the new plan to catch young fish of all small sizes for factory purposes; and if he will take steps by protection vessels or otherwise to control the plan.

Mr. Buchan: The possibility of economic development of industrial fisheries by the British fishing industry is under active consideration. In reaching conclusions the requirements of conservation will be taken fully into account.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Under-Secretary realise that the fishing industry and the consumers of fish are much more important than private exploitation of this kind? Will he put a stop to it?

Mr. Buchan: If the question is whether we are paying attention to both the consumer aspect and industrial fishing, the answer is, "Yes".

Drug Addicts

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of registered drug addicts in Scotland; and what plans he has for their treatment and cure.

Mr. Millan: There is at present no system of registration of drug addicts. Facilities for the treatment of drug addicts are available at a number of hospitals throughout Scotland, and my right hon. Friend is at present reviewing the adequacy of these facilities in consultation with regional hospital boards.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Under-Secretary realise that this addiction is spreading from the South to Scotland and that it must be stopped? Will he take energetic steps to stop it?

Mr. Millan: We do not have registration, but the figures which we have of patients admitted to hospital over the last two or three years do not show any rising trend. Naturally, this is something which must be watched very carefully. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that legislation on this matter is being introduced later this week.

Mr. G. Campbell: In the absence of registration in Scotland, will the hon. Gentleman take some action to get more information on this important subject in case there is a spread?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard me say that we are introducing legislation on the matter later this week.

Council Houses (Sale)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he intends to give to local authorities on the sale of council houses.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Local authorities require my right hon. Friend's consent in every case when they wish to sell. This is given only in very special circumstances. Accordingly general advice to local authorities is not necessary.

Mr. Hamilton: How many local authorities have asked for this consent to date? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that that consent will not be given to local authorities which have waiting lists? Will he further give the assurance that in principle he disapproves of this idea?

Dr. Mabon: Without notice I cannot give a precise list, but the number concerned is very tiny. As I have said, there have to be special circumstances which must not offend the essential principle to which the Secretary of State adheres, namely, that the sale of houses does not prejudice the supply of houses to let for those who need them.

New Towns (Rents)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals for increased rents in new towns, stating in detail the reasons for such increases and whether the proposals conform with the prices and incomes policy.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The scheme which the new town development corporations have introduced, with my right hon. Friend's agreement, is based on the principles that tenants should be aware in advance of their rent commitment over a period; that by the end of the period reasonable standard rents should be payable; and that these standard rents should be reduced for tenants with incomes below certain levels.
The Government are satisfied that the scheme conforms to our prices and incomes policy: increases will not take

effect until after 30th June, and many lower paid tenants will have their rents reduced next month.

Mr. Hamilton: Why has not this scheme been published or sent to Members who are particularly affected by it? Second, what consultations took place with the development corporations and the local authorities within the neighbourhood of the new towns before the scheme was produced?

Dr. Mabon: In conformity with past practice, the final proposals were made known to the local authorities near the time when publication had taken place. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not had this information. I shall see that hon. Members representing new towns are informed of the proposal as it affects the four new towns in Scotland.
Consultations on this matter have been going on since 1965 and, specifically, we consulted one local authority, the East Kilbride Town Council, as early as March, 1965 about how we would proceed on this important matter.

REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT PREMIUM

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement.
During the course of the Government's consideration of the problems of the development areas and the studies carried out by the Treasury, the Department of Economic Affairs and other Departments concerned with the system of selective employment payments, a proposal has been developed for the payment of a regional employment premium to those categories of manufacturing establishments in development areas which already attract premia under the Selective Employment Payments Act. This proposal has been set out in a memorandum which was issued this morning on behalf of the Government by the Department of Economic Affairs and the Treasury. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
The memorandum was also given initial consideration by the National Economic Development Council at its meeting this morning and will be considered more


fully at its meeting in May. I have also arranged with the chairmen for it to be considered by the Regional Economic Planning Councils in England, and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales will make similar arrangements for consultation on it with their Economic Councils.
I wish to make clear that the public presentation of this proposal is an initiative to which the Government attach great importance, because of the high priority which they give to a reduction of the disparity in unemployment levels between the development areas and the rest of Britain and to the achievement of the maximum rate of economic growth consistent with the maintenance of the stability and balance of the economy both internally and externally.
The view is frequently expressed by the Confederation of British Industry, the T.U.C. and other bodies that the opinion of informed and interested parties should be sought and publicly discussed while policy is still in a formative stage. The Government have much sympathy with this view, and it is in this spirit that they put forward this proposal for full consultation and public discussion. Following this consultation and discussion, the Government will decide whether or not to submit a proposal for legislation to Parliament.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Will the First Secretary of State take it that, leaving aside for the moment the merits of the proposal, the idea of having public discussion is wholly to be welcomed? I hope that Parliament will not be excluded from the discussions. Is he aware that both sides of the House welcome the fact that there is a further intention to reduce the disparity in prosperity between different areas of the country? This is not in dispute.
Without prejudicing the arguments which will take place, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that this traces back to the fundamental flaw in the Selective Employment Tax which encourages manufacturing however trivial and penalises services however essential, the result of which has been to harm countries like Scotland and regions like the south-west of England? Does he recall that all the Amendments moved from this side of the House to

put this right were opposed by the Government a year ago? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, therefore, that he would be better advised to consider recasting, and in due course abolishing, the S.E.T. rather than build fresh anomalies into it?

Mr. Stewart: I would not agree with the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. One must remember that he did not want any premiums paid at all. But I shall not pursue that now, because this is not the moment to discuss the actual merits of the proposal. If views similar to those expressed by the right hon. Gentleman are held, it will be open to those who hold them to make their point in the course of discussion.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the concept of public discussion of this proposal. Parliament, of course, is not excluded. I have sought to arrange the announcement of the proposal so as to synchronise as nearly as possible the announcement to Parliament, the N.E.D.C. and the regional councils. It is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I would think and hope that, during the debates next week, we shall begin to get the opinions of hon. Members on this proposal.

Mr. Thorpe: Any help given to the development districts will be welcomed. I particularly welcome the recognition by the Government of the adverse effect of the present S.E.T. upon the development districts, but is the First Secretary of State aware that this proposal does nothing to assist the service industries, many of which are valuable dollar earners? Second, does not he consider that, instead of creating more anomalies, it would be much better in the Budget to have regional variations, with development districts paying a much lower rate of S.E.T.?

Mr. Stewart: It seems to me that these are all views which the right hon. Gentleman and others can put forward in the discussion of the proposal.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the bodies and people concerned be able to put forward alternative or supplementary proposals such as the excellent ideas which the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) proposed for Malta, with remission of Profits Tax in respect of earlier


years of working and other similar inducements as were offered at Shannon? Will these suggestions be considered if they are put forward as supplementary proposals?

Mr. Stewart: I shall be extremely surprised if alternative proposals are not put forward in the discussions, but I should add that we might discredit the whole idea of public discussion if it were allowed to go on for too long. I think that there will be adequate opportunity for exchange of views, but the House and the country will want the Government, within reasonable time and so as to avoid uncertainty for business, to reach a decision.

Mr. Dalyell: We on this side very much welcome discussion at a formative stage, but is my right hon. Friend aware that there must be many constituencies like my own, in parts of which, frankly, I do not think that there ought to be any expenditure of public funds, whereas in other parts, such as that bordering the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), public funds are desperately needed? Can my right hon. Friend introduce into his thinking a greater element of selectivity?

Mr. Stewart: This is one of the reasons why one wants to put forward a proposal of this sort for public discussion. It will involve a good many arguments about borderline cases. I do not think that one can properly judge them until one has heard a wide variety of views.

Mr. Henig: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although most of us on this side would welcome any further help given to development areas, there are certain areas which have not been scheduled as development areas—one might call them the grey areas—particularly in the north-west of the country, which also need help? Has he any plans for helping these areas?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir, I cannot say that I have plans on that at present. But it seems to me inevitable that, in the discussion of this proposal, people will be bound to raise the question of the delimitation of the areas.

Mr. Noble: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that while we all appreciate

his idea of public discussion and agree that perhaps it could go on too long, the discussion in the Highland region, where there is a very serious problem, would not last 10 seconds because there is total unanimity about the absurdity of S.E.T. as it is at the moment?

Captain Orr: Has the Minister discussed the matter with the Government of Northern Ireland, which is the area of the United Kingdom with the highest level of unemployment? I understand why he did not mention it in his statement, but could he say, as a general principle, whether it is the Government's intention that this should apply in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Stewart: That is really up to the Government of Northern Ireland, but, of course, if they wish to express views on the matter Her Majesty's Government will certainly listen.

Mr. Bence: While I appreciate the measures being taken by my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he would look again at the distinction between productive and service industry, because over the whole range of consumer durables the service industry is an essential link in the economic production and distribution of the product? There is a serious anomaly here.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that I should enter into that argument now, but it was clear to the Government when this proposal was put forward that that would be one of the reactions to it. We shall no doubt hear more of that during the coming weeks.

Mr. Henry Clark: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how much the House will welcome his rather tardy conversion to regional variation in S.E.T., which was regularly advocated last year from these benches? How does he hope to protect the development areas from the growth of mushroom, labour-intensive industries, which do not give the development areas what they want—stable employment in capital-intensive factories?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that I can develop the answer to the second part of the question now, and I do not think, either, that the hon. Member can speak of tardy conversion. The Government have pursued a whole range of regional


measures which have been of great value to the regions in recent months. It was partly as a result of the study of their working, with the thought in mind that it might be desirable to take further steps, that this proposal has come forward.

Mr. Ogden: Has my right hon. Friend noted that sometimes Members of Parliament are very hard to please, but that his statement will be welcomed not only in Scotland but on Merseyside and elsewhere? The House will not wish there to be merely a hope that the Chairman of Ways and Means will allow discussion, but will want discussion at the same time as other bodies are discussing the proposal.

Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend on the first point; I have noted that Members are often hard to please. On the second point, it is clear that there will be proper discussion in the House, but I felt it right to say that what is or is not in order in the debate next week is in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. G. Campbell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the proposal is confined to manufacturing industry at will have little effect and do little good in areas where there is a low proportion of qualifying manufacturing industry, such as the Highlands, where only 10 per cent. of employment is provided by such industry, and where the situation cannot be changed overnight?

Mr. Stewart: That point has already been made. It would be no good assuming that the proposal should solve all regional problems. It is put forward as a possible valuable contribution to the problems of areas such as the Highlands of Scotland.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some areas are neither boom nor development areas, but have a creeping malaise of growing unemployment and net emigration, and that that is why we should have a variation of this type of tax to help them not to become development areas in the future?

Mr. Stewart: That seems to me to be one of the things that we shall have to take into account during the discussions.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Whilst I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to discuss the proposal in detail at present, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has been made fully aware that there is at present enormous competition for skill in the north-east of England between manufacturing and service industry, and that this substantial proposed subsidy to manufacturing industry will not help in that direction?

Mr. Stewart: I have been made aware of that point, but I think that there is rather more to it than the hon. Member has suggested.

Mr. Rhodes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposal was widely acclaimed throughout the north of England this morning? Will he bear in mind that financial incentives already operating in the north-east of England, together with measures of this kind, would not only attract new manufacturing industry to the area to deal with male unemployment, but also strengthen existing industries, such as shipbuilding, which need it? But would not a scheme of this kind be effective only if there are at least several years' advance notice that it will continue to operate?

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said in the first part of his question. One of the things referred to in the memorandum is the question of the duration of such a scheme, and my hon. Friend will see that it is in line with what he said.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not allow the public discussion to divert his attention from the very pressing problem confronting the service industries? Will he recognise that S.E.T. has borne very heavily on them in the development areas, and particularly on the elderly, the part-time workers and married women who depend on them for their employment and who will not be helped one whit by the Government's proposal?

Mr. Stewart: I think that I said in answer to an earlier question that I am not putting forward the proposal as capable of solving all problems. The opinions that the hon. Member expressed, which are not universally shared, are on another matter.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the proposals are excellent in general there are constituencies like mine, with only 6 per cent. manufacturing industry, that cannot benefit from them, and that more specific and radical measures are required to combat the parlous economic conditions of such areas?

Mr. Stewart: It could not be claimed that the proposal by itself could solve all problems of that kind, but I hope that that will not inhibit the discussion of it as a valuable proposal in a particular sphere.

Mr. Peyton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, while he will be widely thanked by those who receive benefit, it is very unwise to build further upon a tax which has been in force for less than a year, and which many of us think is very bad, and that by this measure it will be put in even more concrete form and will be more difficult to get rid of?

Mr. Stewart: I was aware that that point would be made. We must see how the discussion goes.

Mr. English: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Opposition Front Bench's welcome to the proposal is diametrically opposed to their desire that Britain should sign the Treaty of Rome unconditionally? Will the proposal therefore be a condition of British entry?

Mr. Stewart: If one looks at certain regional policies pursued by member countries of the European Economic Community, I do not think that one can conclude that there would be anything inconsistent between such membership and a policy of this kind.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

FIRTH OF CLYDE DRY DOCK COMPANY

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Firth of Clyde Dry Dock Company Limited which has today applied for the appointment of a liquidator.
With the reorganisation of the Clyde shipyards, now under active discussion with the Shipbuilding Industry Board, it is hoped that an offer for the dock will be forthcoming from a new grouping and it is also possible, under certain circumstances, that a Clyde shipbuilding group making an offer might qualify for a grant or loan from the Shipbuilding Industry Board. Other offers may also be made.
It will be the duty of the liquidator to dispose of this very substantial asset to the best advantage, and the Government, as largest creditor, will have a similar interest.
The Government have, therefore, decided that it would be right for me, should this prove necessary, to support the liquidator with sufficient funds on appropriate terms to maintain the dock and its ancillary facilities intact and in full working order for a reasonable time to allow offers to be submitted. This is designed to ensure that when an offer is accepted there will be the minimum delay in resuming operations.
I have informed the chairman of the company, and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions of the Government's decision and of our view that this was the best way of safeguarding the long term future of this valuable facility, and accordingly of those whose employment must ultimately depend on it.

Mr. Noble: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is a very considerable shock for an area which already has a high unemployment ratio? Could he give the House any idea of the reasons for this sudden collapse of this modern dry dock? Could he tell us a little more of what he has in mind when he says that further offers may be made?
Finally, could the right hon. Gentleman confirm, what I think he intends in his statement, that his help, which, I am


sure, will be necessary, is to be confined just for a reasonable time while other offers are made available?

Mr. Benn: Yes. I share the right hon. Gentleman's disappointment that this project has not succeeded financially. The reasons for it are rather complex. It may well be that it was under-capitalised; and in any case, a dock of this kind had little prospect of success alone. The other offers which may come in will, in part, depend on the extent to which the Clyde shipbuilders themselves regroup to put themselves in a position to make an offer. The help that the Government are now offering to give is to allow those other offers to mature, and to see that the dock is maintained in good working condition so that it can resume operations quickly.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scottish Members will be deeply grateful for the action which he intends taking to keep this dock in full working order? Is he further aware that the proposed merger of shipbuilding firms on the Clyde seems to some of us to offer the best possibility of this dock continuing successfully? Would he lend his good offices in every way possible to make certain that this proposed consortium gets every encouragement so that this dock, whose loss to this area simply cannot be allowed, can be kept in being?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first point that he made. As far as offers from the Clyde are concerned, this does depend on the readiness of the Clyde shipbuilders to regroup and to put in an offer. The services of the Shibbuilding Industry Board are, of course, available and any help we can give with the Board we will, of course, give.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that several shipbuilding firms, major employers in the district have a financial stake here? Can he give us an assurance. that the financial stability of those firms is not affected and that if this is brought into one of the new mergers it will not move in with a large financial burden on it?

Mr. Benn: I did not hear the latter part of that question.

Mr. Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this

will not move into a merger with a burden on it because of this loss?

Mr. Benn: The loss will be written off under the liquidation procedure. As far as the liabilities of Clyde shipbuilders themselves are concerned, the losses, if any, will depend on the new grouping and merger we hope to see under the new Board. For this, substantial sums of Government money will be made available if the House passes the necessary legislation.

Dr. Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is another indication of the difficulties and failures of private enterprise particularly in this field, and that when public money is put into concerns of this kind it should, in future, be accompanied by more control by the Government?

Mr. Benn: It is, of course, true that the points made by my hon. Friend about the nature of the investment may have some bearing on the management aspects, but, at the same time, it is widely agreed now that units of this kind can really succeed only when they are part of a wider grouping. I think that this is where we must look for the solution of the problem of the dock.

Mr. Steele: My right hon. Friend has repeated on a number of occasions that the future of this dock really depends on having a wider grouping. As I understand the position, what he is intending to do at the moment is really just a holding operation till something can be done. What has he in mind to effect this larger grouping? Does he think that he can succeed?

Mr. Benn: It is true that the assistance I have announced today is intended as a holding operation. The long-term success of which depends on the offers coming from the Clyde shipyards, and in this connection, of course, the Shipbuilding Industry Board is in a position to help. I have little doubt of the long-term value of this facility, which is, in fact, a very large dock indeed. It has within it a very large tanker-washing capacity which will be of growing importance as the number of large tankers in the world increases.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I


ask for an assurance that if shipbuilders and people from other rivers come forward with some proposals for additional money to be provided through the Shipbuilding Industry Bill the right hon. Gentleman will be sympathetic? His suggestion opens up to me all sorts of ideas, to which I am looking forward.

Mr. Benn: I did not realise I was putting ideas into the hon. Lady's mind, but this does not alter the arrangements under the Shipbuilding Industry Bill which, as she knows, are confined to help for shipbuilding. This particular proposal is designed to allow offers to come in from the Clyde or elsewhere.

Mr. Bence: In reviewing the situation of the dock when the liquidator is appointed, and in view of the proposed development at Greenock for a container terminal port, which, with the increasing size of ships, and if properly managed and administered, will perhaps in the next decade give us one of the most valuable assets on the Clyde, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in no circumstances will he allow the liquidator to sell it off bit by bit?

Mr. Benn: The purpose of the help I am prepared to give the liquidator is to see that he does not sell off cranes and other individual items in the dock, and that he is in a position to hold it so that the offers can come. This will enable Clyde shipyards to put in their offer when the regrouping with the Board is arranged.
As to the long-term future, I have no doubt of the value of the facility, and that is why I have taken this action today.

Mr. Rankin: While accepting my right hon. Friend's insistence that this is a holding operation, may I ask whether we can also infer from what he has generally said that further Government intervention, if necessary, will not be ruled out?

Mr. Benn: Well, on Government intervention on a longer-term basis, other issues are raised. The Board of Trade has a substantial investment in this dock, and I thought it wrong, by the means open to me, to do things, in terms of investing in this dock as a self-contined

unit, which the Board of Trade, as investor, thought not right. What I am sure of is that by means of this holding operation we can give this dock a real opportunity of fitting into the pattern of developments on the Clyde which will be of permanent value in that area.

BRISTOL SIDDELEY ENGINES LTD. (INQUIRY)

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. John Stonehouse): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a further statement about Bristol Siddeley Engines Ltd.
I should like, first, to deal with the events of 25th March. Following the newspaper reports and comments that appeared after my previous statement in the House, I telephoned my officials from Cornwall on Easter Saturday, advising them to answer Press inquiries with such information about the background to this case as was already available in the Department. I added one political comment which I said could go out, from me, if required.
My instructions were misunderstood, and, following a whole series of telephone calls between officials working from their homes or holiday addresses, this background information, together with my own comment, was, in error, issued as a statement by me. As drafted it did not, and could not, have my authority, and it was withdrawn as soon as this was understood.
I has been brought to my attention that some of the words in the statement that was issued erroneously are open to misinterpretation. I should like to make it clear that the company did not put a figure to the amount of the overcharging when first reporting it in December, 1964. Nor at any time later did it suggest that it was only a few hundred thousand pounds. This was the impression formed by officials at the end of 1964, and the full extent of the sums involved became apparent only after the most detailed investigations.
I should also like to make it clear that there was no contradiction between my criticism of the company for its original over-charging and double-charging and the fact that the senior


directors behaved with correctness in reporting the matter and throughout my dealings with them about the repayment. The long delay in negotiating this repayment, which I reported to the House, arose in part from the fact that it was not until February of this year that we were able to obtain from the firm the full information that we required on the actual costs incurred.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Stonehouse: Nor is there any truth whatsoever in the allegation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), who preceded me as Minister of Aviation, gave any sort of undertaking to the firm that if a prompt and full payment were made, the Government would moderate its comments in the subsequent announcement in Parliament.
With regard to the case itself, which raises important matters of public interest, my right hon. Friend has decided to institute a full and independent inquiry. The terms of reference of this inquiry and the names of those who will conduct it will be announced shortly.
I think that the House will wish to have some background information with which, of course, the inquiry will be concerned.
For the years 1959–60 to 1962–63 fixed prices were agreed with Bristol Siddeley Engines for engine overhaul contracts and repair of spares contracts for, among the engines with which they were dealing, Sapphire and Viper engines. These prices were based on quotations made by the firm and were agreed by the Department. By the middle of 1964 the Ferranti case had come to light and, as a result, instructions had been issued by the Department that prices should not be fixed solely on the basis of estimates for work which had already been done and on which it was to be expected that actual cost information was available.
In relation to the 1963–64 and 1964–65 contracts, the Department therefore asked for figures of actual hours worked and materials used on the earlier contracts, but we had not obtained the firm's agreement by the end of 1964. In December of that year the firm drew attention to the fact that the quotations given for the Sapphire and Viper engines for 1963–64 and 1964–65 were too high by a considerable margin and would be reduced. This

was the first indication which the Department had that excess profits might have been made in earlier years.
In February, 1965, the revised quotations were received from the firm and showed considerable reductions, in some cases of the order of 50 per cent., on the previous quotations. A detailed examination was then launched by the Department into the pricing of engine overhaul contracts with special reference to Sapphire and Viper engines, and as a result a report was produced in December, 1965, based on the actual costs of certain work done in 1964–65 which were made available to us by the firm.
This showed that there had been overestimation of the costs of overhaul and also revealed for the first time that there had been double-charging in respect of the stripping and rebuilding of certain assemblies which, although covered in the specification and price for the engine overhaul contract, had been charged to the repair of spares contract. I should here make it clear that this double-charging arose from errors in the operation of the firm's procedures and that from the time of its discovery the firm has been willing to make restitution in full.
As regards the over-estimation of price, negotiations with the firm continued until February, 1967, with a view first to obtaining details of the firm's actual costs from 1959 onwards and, secondly, to agree what a reasonable rate of retained profit should be. I would remind the House that these were fixed-price contracts. The firm had quoted prices and the Department, after an examination—in the outcome clearly an ineffective one—had accepted them, and it was clear to the Department that a legal claim could not be pursued.
None the less, the negotiations led the firm to offer a refund. In February, 1967, we obtained separate cost figures for Sapphire and Viper engines, on the one hand, and the remaining engine overhaul and repair at the Coventry and Bristol factories, on the other. This disclosed for the first time that there had been excess profits on the overhaul of other engines. On the basis of the figures, a refund was agreed at £3,960,000 including repayment of double-charging of about £500,000.
As for the future, I must make it clear—once again—that the Government require equality of information, including post costing in contracts of this kind.

Mr. R. Carr: As to the sorry events of Easter Saturday we welcome the Minister's apology as far as it goes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Government have been responsible for so much contradiction and confusion, and this has been a long statement, and I therefore hope that I shall be allowed to put several questions to the Minister without interruption.
First, is the Minister aware that we welcome very strongly his promise of a full and independent inquiry into the whole matter? But will he answer two questions about that inquiry? First, will he assure the House that it will cover the whole history of this affair up to and including the extraordinary events of Easter Saturday? Secondly, will he give the House some idea of the sort of composition of the committee of inquiry into this matter? We are not asking for names, but it seems to us to be extremely important—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will listen to the questions.

Mr. Carr: —that this inquiry should be seen to be independent in every sense of the word. We should like some indication of the sort of composition.
My second main point is this: is the Minister aware that we welcome his categorical reaffirmation of the statement which he made to the House on 22nd March that the directors of the company have behaved correctly throughout. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am asking the Minister whether he realises that we welcome the reaffirmation which he has just given and that he has thereby categorically denied the very serious implications against the personal integrity of those directors contained in the subsequent statement and other background information issued by his Department after the House rose for the Easter Recess. Can he tell us how such serious and now, admittedly false, implications ever came to be made?
Lastly, while supporting the Minister's insistence on equality of information in

the placing of contracts, will he tell the House what he intends to do about the implication of the whole range of the Lang Commission recommendations? Does he not realise that the importance of these are as a complete package?

Mr. Stonehouse: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support on the setting up of the independent inquiry. It will, of course, be able to cover the whole history of the affair. We welcome its investigation into any aspect that it considers to be important. The composition of the inquiry will be similar to the Lang inquiry, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and the House to await a detailed statement which my right hon. Friend intends to make on this inquiry.
I reaffirm, of course, what I said in my statement on 22nd March, but there has been some misunderstanding about this statement. I clarified the two aspects of this event. I went out of my way to explain that in my dealings with the firm during the negotiations it behaved perfectly correctly. How can I have said otherwise when it did what I asked it to do in producing its costs, and repaid the sum of money which I asked it to repay? There has been some confusion in some people's minds in relating this assessment of the firm's correct behaviour to the original over-quotation, events which I did not excuse. In fact, I condemned them in my original statement.
I can give an assurance to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have accepted most of the detailed recommendations of the second Lang Report and that many of these have already been implemented.

Mr. Edelman: Is not this whole affair a grave national scandal which requires a public and impartial investigation of the aircraft industry as a whole? There are many people who believe that this is only the tip of the iceberg. How can my hon. Friend reconcile his original remarks on 22nd March, when he said that Bristol Siddeley had behaved correctly throughout, with the proceedings of the last two years, when it is quite clear that it fought a prolonged rearguard action in order not to repay the money?

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not want to be drawn, in a statement of this character,


on the wider aspects of the case. The House will no doubt have other opportunities of debating the problems of the aircraft industry.
In my statement of 22nd March, I was referring—and it is quite clear from the context—to the correctness of the senior directors' behaviour in these series of negotiations, particularly those that they had with me during the last few weeks of negotiation. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the confusion that has been caused outside by certain comments on this point.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Could the hon. Gentleman say what excess profits have been refunded to the firm, because, presumably it has paid rather more than 50 per cent. taxation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Secondly, may I reiterate what my right hon. Friend said in welcoming the public inquiry. We very much hope, on this side of the House, that the inquiry will not be an excuse for not getting ahead with designing a profit formula over the whole field of his responsibility which could give an incentive to efficient firms and, at the same time, protect the taxpayers. This is vital, not just in this matter but over the whole field of aerospace.

Mr. Stonehouse: The second point is a matter for negotiations between the Government and the C.B.I., and I do not want to comment on the talks that are being conducted.
The tax refund was taken into account in the repayment that the firm made to us. That repayment was finalised on 21st March and an auditor's certificate was made available to us by that date. That was the simple reason why the statement was made on the day before we rose for the Recess.

Mr. Ellis: Would the Minister say, in view of the long delay when the company did not produce its books to his Department, why he did not make use of Section 10 of the Ministry of Supply Act 1939, mentioned by the Lang Committee, by which he could have made a Ministerial Order making the firm produce the books? Some of us are most concerned about this matter. We believe in the aircraft industry, but we are not prepared to stuff money down the throats of the private enterprise side of industry for

ever more in order to have an efficient aircraft industry.

Mr. Stonehouse: We prefer to work by negotiation which, in the end, produced a very satisfactory result indeed. I should also like to make clear that the reason why the costs were not called for, and could not be called for by any compulsion, was because of the contract procedures that the Opposition had established during the period that they were responsible for this.

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman said that when it was found that the statement which was made on Saturday could not be suitably attributed to him it was withdrawn. As I understand, that was not the case; it was first attributed to his Department and then withdrawn. Will the inquiry be into how a political matter came to be attributed to a Ministry statement as opposed to a Ministerial statement? Can he also confirm whether the inquiry will be held under the 1921 Act?
Finally, may I ask him whether it is not true that the real issue between the aircraft industry and the Ministry is whether the profitability should be assessed contract by contract or overall? If it is overall, why is it that the nationalised industries base theirs on an overall—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating this issue. Questions must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Stonehouse: For those reasons I do not intend to be drawn on the third point made by the hon. Gentleman. The statement was unauthorised, and as soon as it was realised that it had gone out it was withdrawn.
The inquiry will not be established under the 1921 Act. The Lang inquiry was not so established.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Would my hon. Friend confirm that full responsibility for this sorry story, industrially and politically, rests in quarters other than the Government Front Bench, and that his major rôle in this has been the commendable one of exposing the record of past Conservative Administrations for their gross failure to protect the taxpayer?

Mr. Stonehouse: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is significant that the Opposition have expressed absolutely


no regret for this sorry state of affairs. The fact is that the firm and the Government were operating under contract procedures which the party opposite had laid down and which it now acknowledges were wrong.

Mr. Burden: Can we take it that the Minister will ensure that in future no statements are issued by his Department without his authority? Secondly, would he not agree that it would appear that there are some shortcomings in the effectiveness of the costing section of his Ministry? In view of the tremendous technical "know-how" which is required in aerospace, will he ensure that, where costings are concerned, he has the quality of men in his Department able to cost properly?

Mr. Stonehouse: Steps have been taken to ensure that similar mistakes do not occur again. The technical cost Department has been increased in strength by 21 per cent. and the purchasing branch has been increased by 18 per cent. We are taking steps to continue to strengthen this very important contracts division of the Ministry.

Mr. Lubbock: While I accept that the directors of Bristol Siddeley have no stain on their reputation at all, would the hon. Gentleman agree that they must be ultimately responsible for the errors of the employees of that company, just as he would be held responsible for any errors committed by the employees of his Department? Secondly, did he consider whether the inquiry could be undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee instead of by an organisation outside this House? Will the inquiry have power to consider other cases of overcharging which might have occurred, apart from the Bristol Siddeley Engines case?
On the question of the contract procedure—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Lubbock: I have only one more question, Mr. Speaker. It was a long statement.

Mr. Speaker: That applies to every hon. Member who is trying to get in.

Mr. Lubbock: On the contract procedure, the Minister said that it was the

fault of his predecessors that it was not altered. May I ask him whether Standard Condition No. 43 applied to this contract and, if so, whether the Ministry would have had access to the current cost records of the company if it had so wished?

Mr. Stonehouse: As I said twice in my statement in the House on 22nd March, the senior directors of B.S.E.L. are ultimately responsible, and I reaffirm the point.
The Public Accounts Committee can, if it so chooses, carry out its own inquiries.
We have improved out contract procedures, and no fixed-price contracts on repair and overhaul business have been concluded with B.S.E.L. since these events came to light.

Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend said that this is a very satisfactory settlement. Could he say why he settled for a 20 per cent. margin of profit when the normal margin is 7 per cent.? Is it because he expects the company normally to exceed or treble the profit he originally negotiates? If an inquiry is to be undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee, since, unfortunately, it did not previously notice overpayment because it was not able to see the books of Bristol Siddeley, will it this time have the opportunity to see the books of the company?

Mr. Stonehouse: On the percentage of the profit on costs which is left, the House must be aware that this was a fixed-price contract and that there was no legal compulsion on our side to demand anything back from the firm. It voluntarily gave us a refund. Of course, the arguments of the firm on its side were considerable, and this was why the negotiations took some time. I do not want to be drawn too far on this point, because it will be investigated by the inquiry.
It is for the Public Accounts Committee to demand what documents it requires. My Department will be very willing to supply it with all the material at its disposal.

Mr. A. Royle: In view of the Minister's earlier comments about the Conservative Administration, will he give an assurance that no excessive profits are being made on any contract at present under way from his Ministry?

Mr. Stonehouse: I can certainly give an assurance of that character. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the hon. Gentleman means whether there are at the moment any contracts reported to the Ministers in which any such discrepancies apply, of course I can give that absolute assurance.

Mr. Cronin: While it is clear that my right hon. Friend has acted properly throughout, would not he agree that an inquiry into a single case is not sufficient and that there should be a thorough investigation of the whole system of placing contracts? Would not he agree that there should be powers to have post-contract sharing of costing information and powers to renegotiate contracts when situations such as this arise?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, we are anxious to have post-costing as well as equality of information. It will be for the Government to decide what further steps they should take when the report of the inquiry is available.

Mr. Emery: Does the Minister recollect that in paragraph 74 of the second Lang Report there were direct recommendations about the training of staff, oversight procedures and cost estimating and accountancy principles and that it was said in the next paragraph that the contracts division and the establishment and organisation division of his Ministry rejected these recommendations? Will he ensure that this matter is looked at again and that the inquiry is able to make recommendations about the upgrading of the supply section of his Ministry if it considers it necessary?

Mr. Stonehouse: We shall consider very seriously any proposals which the members of the inquiry put to us.

Mr. Mendelson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when the Ferranti scandal was disclosed in detail by the Public Accounts Committee both he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) were Members of the House? In view of that experience which they both went through, why did they wait until February of this year before coming to the House and making a disclosure of the company's refusal to give them access to the books? In the light of that experience, what

entitles my hon. Friend to say this afternoon that he knows that no overcharging is taking place at present? Has he access to the books of all the companies now involved?

Mr. Stonehouse: We were satisfied that the negotiations would come to a satisfactory conclusion and we were hopeful that we would get a refund of reasonable proportions. In fact, we achieved that, and I think that the House can be satisfied about the result achieved. If there had been a premature disclosure of some aspects of this case, the negotiations could have been prejudiced very seriously. The Government are now asking for equality of information and post-costing in order to avoid—[Interruption.] No, of course we have not got it yet. This is exactly why we demand it.

Mr. Shinwell: Am I to understand from my hon. Friend that it is the Government's intention in respect of contracts of this character that the costing section of his Department will demand access to the books so as to ascertain whether excess profits are being made? Will that be done? If so, how far will it extend? Will it be retrospective over a period of years?

Mr. Stonehouse: This is a question which is currently under negotiation between my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and the C.B.I. I would prefer to await the general statement which my right hon. Friend will make on the negotiations. But the Government are determined to get these rights in regard to both equality of information and post-costing so that such scandals can be avoided in future.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any of the Service Departments or Ministries had permanent technical representatives resident with Bristol Siddeley at this time? If so, how many, and why was it that nothing was noticed by the technical representatives resident in the company at the time?

Mr. Stonehouse: The problem arose because the technical costs department in my Ministry was understaffed at the time and because of certain procedures in the firm. I do not want to be drawn further on this, because I believe that these are detailed questions which must


be studied by the inquiry and it would be quite wrong of me to anticipate them.

Mr. Maxwell: Would my hon. Friend agree that if his predecessor in the former Conservative Administration had drawn these contracts more correctly so that the Government were given the right to know what hours were worked and what materials were available this overcharging would never have occurred? Would he further tell the House whether he is willing at this stage to say that he will not enter into any fixed-price contracts unless firms are willing to give him right of access to the books in exactly the same way as happens with all defence contracts in the United States?

Mr. Stonehouse: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely correct. The real villain of the piece here is the Conservative Administration of up to 1964, who absolutely failed to overhaul the contract procedures and put the present Government in the position of having to clear up this shocking mess.
We are, of course, determined that we shall get this equality of information—we hope by negotiation; but if that is not possible we shall ensure that we obtain it by some other means.

Mr. R. Carr: If the villain of the piece is the form of contracts which the previous Conservative Government entered into, why is it that two and a half years later exactly the same form of contracts are still being entered into by the Government in spite of the fact that as a result of the action of the Conservative Government the present Government took over the recommendations of the second Lang Report ready to be implemented?

Mr. Stonehouse: Because the present Government are insisting on having the right terms and conditions with the C.B.I. and the other firms involved. That is the reason. As to the placing of fixed-price contracts and as regards the firm in question, as I said earlier no fixed-price contracts have been placed for any repair and overhaul work.

Mr. Atkinson: In view of the guarantee given by the Minister that excess profits will not be made, and as this company now has something like £140 million worth of contracts for the future,

will my hon. Friend define what he means by "excess profits"?

Mr. Stonehouse: If my hon. Friend reads the detailed paragraphs in the second Lang Report, he will see a full description of the profit rate that was applicable at the time. I do not want to anticipate the result of the inquiry which is being held, or the negotiations which are being conducted by my right hon. Friend with the C.B.I.

Mr. R. Carr: Is the hon. Gentleman still placing fixed-price contracts of the old form with other companies? He said that he was not doing so with Bristol Siddeley, but what about other companies?

Mr. Stonehouse: Hundreds of contracts are placed by my Department. As far as possible we obtain details of costs, but in the absence of an agreement with the industry, which we intend to get—[Interruption.] It would be premature for the Government to have insisted on these conditions prior to the negotiations taking place. If we had done that, the Opposition would have accused us of bad faith. What we are doing is reaching an agreement with the firms so that this matter can be satisfactorily resolved.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that I must disappoint some hon. Members, but we must move on.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Vietnam

Mr. Atkinson: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 21st April, I shall call attention to the whole situation now existing in Vietnam and the policy of this Government, and move a Resolution.

Foremen and Staffs Mutual Benefit Society

Mr. Russell Kerr: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 21st April, I shall call attention to discrimination by the Foremen and Staffs Mutual Benefit Society against trade unionists, and move a Resolution.

The Press

Mr. More: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 21st April, I shall call attention to the state of the law on the Press, and move a Resolution.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the House will recall that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) made a complaint of breach of privilege, on which I promised to rule this afternoon, having taken the customary 24 hours to deliberate upon his submission.
The hon. Member founded his complaint upon two newspapers, and when a complaint is made of an article in a newspaper, the newspaper containing the article or report must be delivered in at the Table as an entire document. This the hon. Member did.
I have now had the opportunity of studying the passages complained of in each of the two newspapers which the hon. Member handed to me. The first newspaper is the Belfast Telegraph, dated 24th March, 1967, which contains a report of a speech by the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland.
Having considered all the precedents which might bear upon this case, I find that there is no prima facie case of breach of privilege which would entitle me to give priority over the Orders of the Day to the hon. Member's complaint founded upon the reports in the Belfast Telegraph.
The second newspaper which the hon. Member handed in was the Protestant Telegraph of Saturday, 1st April, 1967. A report in that newspaper dealt with proceedings in this House, namely, a Motion tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, West and other hon. Members and urged the arrest of the hon. Member who tabled the Motion, describing him as an "arch traitor".
Again in the light of the precedents available to me, I have no doubt that the hon. Member's complaint founded on this newspaper constitutes a prima facie case of breach of privilege which entitles the matter to priority over the Orders of the Day.
Perhaps I should remind the House that it therefore becomes necessary for a

Motion to be moved so that the matter can be dealt with now.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, it falls to me, as Leader of the House, in accordance with past practice to, move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I think that it would be in the interests of the House as a whole if it were decided that no further debate should take place at this stage.

Mr. Heath: I support the Leader of the House in the Motion which he has moved and I hope that the House will accept his recommendation that no further debate should follow now.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. I wish to raise, Mr. Speaker, not the subject of the complaint, but something which you have said in your Ruling which, with great respect, I question. You have referred to the "customary" 24 hours' delay. With great respect, this has become a cliché from the Chair and, strictly speaking, is not in accord with the facts.
The 1958–59 Select Committee on Procedure, of which I was a member, allowed Mr. Speaker to delay giving a decision for 24 hours when he deemed it necessary so to do. It is not, however, necessary to delay for 24 hours. There might be all sorts of situations in which a Ruling could be given straight away. I hope, therefore, Mr. Speaker, with very great respect, that you will not use that terminology in future, because it is purely a matter of option on your part whether to invoke the 24 hours' delay.

Mr. Speaker: As the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has said—and he is one of the experts on Parliamentary procedure—this was a recommendation from the Select Committee. It was, however, a practice which afterwards was followed constantly by my predecessor, so much so that it has now become a custom. There might be occasions when Mr. Speaker could rule at once that the matter complained of constituted a prima facie case of breach of privilege. On the other hand, it is not a bad idea for Mr. Speaker to have some time to consider what is a very serious


decision for him and perhaps later for the House to take.

Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respectfully urge a course contrary to that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) and pray in aid the suggestion that, very often, by taking 24 hours for deliberation, a newspaper which may technically be in breach uses the period of delay to make an apology to the House, to Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. Member or Members involved which, in turn, often gives the hon. Member or Members an opportunity to withdraw the matter and the whole affair is resolved happily.
I respectfully urge that this is an extremely good system and not one which we should lightly waive.

Mr. Speaker: This is a classic illustration of the Speaker being at the centre of all the tensions of the House and receiving diametrically opposed pieces of advice.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

BILL PRESENTED

POST OFFICE (DATA PROCESSING SERVICE)

Bill to authorise the payment out of the Post Office Fund of the expenses of the Postmaster-General in providing services and facilities for the processing of data by computer, presented by Mr. Edward Short; supported by Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, and Mr. Joseph Slater; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 228.]

Orders of the Day — MARINE, &c., BROADCASTING (OFFENCES) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee) read.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you proceed to put the Question on the first Amendment selected, may I draw your attention to the fact that among the Motions put down yesterday, Tuesday, 4th April, and appearing in that day's Order Paper was a Motion in my name—
That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Marine, &amp;c, Broadcasting (Offences) Bill with respect to the application of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business to the Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee.
I understand that, in accordance with practice, that Motion does not appear now in the Orders of the Day but has been transferred to the ordinary Private Members' Motions for which no day has been fixed. I submit that there are precedents for such a Motion having been moved, and, whether or not I am right in suggesting that the Bill should be referred to the Examiners, it seems a defect that an hon. Member who considers it right that a Public Bill should be referred to the Examiners has no means of getting a debate on the topic unless it is a Government Motion.
It is my submission that this Bill is, in fact, a Hybrid Bill and not a Public Bill, as it deals with one class of person, namely, 10 pirate radio stations. What I put to you is that it has been impossible for me to obtain a debate on whether or not there is any merit in the suggestion that I put forward because my Motion is now just an ordinary Private Member's Motion and has not been put forward by the Government of the day. There has been no chance of debating the proposed reference of the Bill to the Examiners, and I wonder if it might be considered.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). The point which he raises is a substantial one. The fact that his Motion had appeared on the Order Paper called my attention to the matter, on which I shall now give a Ruling.
The question of determining whether a Bill is hybrid or not is often a difficult one, and I would refer the hon. Gentleman to Erskine May at page 871. However, the hon. Gentleman has had his Motion on the Order Paper for several days, so that I have been able to consider the issue carefully.
As the House may recall, a Hybrid Bill has been defined as a Public Bill which affects a particular interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category or class.
The Bill now being considered by the House has the object of making certain activities illegal. The Bill applies to anyone carrying out such activities; the fact that they are, apparently, carried out by a limited number of known operators in no way affects the interests of such operators in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies. No change has been made to the Bill by way of amendment in Committee which alters this situation.
I cannot, therefore, discern any prima facie ground for finding that the Bill is one which ought to be referred to the Examiners.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1.—(COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS.)

No criminal proceedings under this Act shall be instituted in the United Kingdom by the Director of Public Prosecutions or in Northern Ireland by Mr. Attorney General for Northern Ireland until the Secretary of State by Order in Council has certified that the necessary statutory powers have been taken by all signatories to the European Agreement set out in Command Paper No. 2616 to implement the said Agreement; and the. Secretary of State shall cause copies of the said statutory powers to be laid in the Library of both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Ian Gilmour.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Clause is to make it impossible for any proceedings to be brought under this Bill until all the other signatories to the European Agreement have also implemented that agreement and that agreement has been notified to

the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
It is fair to say that, throughout our debates on the Bill, the Postmaster-General has used the European Agreement as his bible. If it is possible to do so with a bible, he has sheltered behind it at all times. He has used it as a defence to all sorts of Amendments. In the Standing Committee, when we were moving a fairly innocuous though important Amendment to insert the word "knowingly", in rejecting our contentions he went so far as to say that though he had sympathy for the motives of those of us moving the Amendment, it would weaken the Bill and make it different from the European Agreement. He went on to say:
I am afraid that I cannot agree to the Bill being weakened and to this divergence from the European pattern."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 9th March, 1967; c. 130.]
The divergence related to the insertion of the word "knowingly", which would have brought the Measure into line with ordinary British principles of law.
I mention that only by way of illustration to show the importance which the right hon. Gentleman attaches to the European Agreement. It seems to us, therefore, that if he intends to be so fundamentalist about the bible of the European Agreement, we also are entitled to be fundamentalist about it. In accordance with the principles which he has outlined throughout our debates on the Bill, the behaviour of this Parliament should also be brought into line with that of the other signatories to the agreement.
We feel that this fundamentalist approach to the European Agreement will gain the approval of the Postmaster-General because he says that we cannot do things since the European signatories to the agreement have already made their view plain. Therefore, it follows that, equally, they must also carry out their obligations under the agreement, because we have not yet reached the stage when treaties should always override the law of the land or, if they do, there must be reciprocity.
It is true that the Postmaster-General has said that we are the worst offender in this matter, but that is because of the arrangements for broadcasting in this country, and I will not go into those


because it would be out of order. However, that does not alter the principle which underlines the new Clause.
As we are on the subject of the European Agreement, perhaps the Postmaster-General could tell us about the Addendum to the European Agreement made by the Council of Europe on 30th January, 1965, when the Consultative Assembly passed an amendment resolving, inter alia, to insert an additional paragraph 3 to read:
Considering that the sole justification for an international regulation of telecommunications is the limited availability of frequencies and spectrum space;
and to amend the final paragraph to read:
Recommends that the Committee of Ministers should instruct the Committee of Experts on Broadcasting and Television to examine the possibility of supplementing the Agreement by way of a protocol in order to … express the intention of the signatory of the Agreement exclusively to cope with the limited availability of frequencies and spectrum space, and not to safeguard the vested interests of any State or other monopolies in mass telecommunications …".
It seems prima facie that this Bill would fall outside that amendment. Whether it does or not, it seems entirely reasonable that, if this country is acting in pursuance of a European Agreement, it should demand from the other signatories that they should carry it out. It is in that extreme European spirit that we support the new Clause.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): The new Clause would mean that no prosecution could take place until all the signatories of the European Agreement had taken similar legislative powers to our own. A provision on these lines would, of course, lead to indefinite delay in the implementation of the Bill. It would enable any single country of the 12 which have so far signed the agreement to delay action by the United Kingdom and it would really be a pathetic abdication of our responsibility to the international community to say that we would take no action until everyone else had done so.
I might say, by the way, that, as drafted, it would also have some weird side effects, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not intend. For example, it would bring the Bill into force in

Scotland before the rest of the United Kingdom.
The underlying idea that anti-pirate legislation should enter into force simultaneously in all European countries is not, I agree, without merit, if it is considered as an ideal which it would be nice to aim for. As each country enacts the legislation it might be said to be driving a certain amount of business to other countries, particularly in supplies to ships, so from that narrow and rather disreputable point of view there would be an advantage in the simultaneous provision of legislation.
However, in practical terms, the idea of waiting for everybody to legislate is nonsenical. All the countries from which any pirate broadcasters are deriving any support have a strong moral obligation—they know it perfectly well—to cut off that support as soon as possible. The Scandinavian countries recognise this and acted promptly in 1962, as did Belgium. Now, because we are by far the worst offenders, it is unmistakably the United Kingdom's turn to take action. To hold back now would be a betrayal of our European neighbours whose broadcasting services are suffering a great deal of interference from our pirate radio ships.
Also, to do so would be wrong in itself. Pirate broadcasting is a challenge to the rule of law and we cannot take the line that we will re-establish the rule of law only when it is commercially expedient or not until we can certify that every other country has done what is necessary to this end. We must take action ourselves now and not look for the lowest common denominator in international action. Once we have enacted the Bill, we shall be in a strong position to press the signatories to the European Agreement to do so.
Incidentally, no addendum was added to the Council of Europe Agreement. The proposal of the Consultative Assembly to do so was considered, but rejected. The point here is that we are not protecting vested or monopoly interests, but the interests of listeners. If this kind of thing is allowed to develop there will be chaos in the air. We are protecting the people whose business it is to travel and work on ships at sea and we are protecting the owners of copyright. In the Government's view


this legislation ought to be enacted without delay. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the new Clause.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have been spared the humbug of the Postmaster-General on this matter by the good fortune of having been in the United States over the last month, where I was able to listen to free, competitive radio. I am glad that, on my return, I have the opportunity of speaking on the Amendments and new Clauses before the right hon. Gentleman, as he seems determined, has his way.
The right hon. Gentleman made much in his speech today of strong moral obligations and his concern to protect the interests of the listeners. I have never heard such humbug as that. In what way is he protecting the interests of the listeners by depriving them of the opportunity to listen to what they want? That is an extraordinary statement. His Government had two years in which to fulfil the strong moral obligations he has spoken about.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about a challenge to the rule of law. Why did not these things cause the Government to move during their first 18 months of power? Time and again we were told that they would taken action and time and again they allowed their moral obligations and the challenge to the rule of law, as the right hon. Gentleman described it, to go by the board. Only now, when he produces this monstrous Bill to deprive people of their opportunity, does he come here and talk in high moral terms about challenge to the rule of law and protecting the interests of the listeners.
The new Clause seeks to ensure that other countries shall subscribe to the same set of rules that we are about to impose upon ourselves and asks that the British people and the British entrepreneurs shall not have imposed upon them something which people in other countries will not have to bear for a considerable period.
The Postmaster-General, taking refuge in this international agreement, must answer a number of questions about it. Some of the signatories to that agreement were Albania, Byelorussia, Monaco and the Ukraine. Will the Postmaster-General tell me in what way he thinks Albania

will respond to the strong moral pressure which he is about to put upon her—

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. He is talking about the Council of Europe Convention, which has nothing to do with Albania.

Mr. Griffiths: I am referring to the European Broadcasting Convention, a copy of which I have before me, and which is the basis of much which the Postmaster-General has said in Committee and since. I am well aware of the Council of Europe's Strasbourg codicil, which is all that it really was.
How will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that countries like Albania, Monaco and the Ukraine will respect the same rules which he is imposing on the British? We have had an example—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us which Albanian and Ukranian pirate stations menace the people of this country by interference with our air space?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not know, but it is a question of considering whether, under Albanian or Byelorussian protection there could well become stations which interfered with listening in this country—

Mr. Ian Gilmour: In fact, Albania interferes most drastically with the Light programme and the Home Service of the B.B.C., so the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), with respect, has his facts wrong: Albania is a prime culprit in this.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: If I may be forgiven, I said, "Which Albanian pirate stations"?

Mr. Griffiths: All that the hon. Member is demonstrating is that, in addition to humbug on this matter on that side of the House there is also ignorance. Albania, as my hon. Friend pointed out, does interfere with British broadcasts, and the Postmaster-General says, apparently, that he will go hawking round the moral obligation to Tirana and expecting the Albanian régime to respond—

Mr. Edward Short: I have here a copy of the agreement to which I was referring. It is the European Agreement for the Prevention of Broadcasts transmitted from Stations outside National Territories. It


is the Council of Europe Agreement which the Government signed. Albania is not a signatory to it. It was signed by 12 countries, but certainly not by Albania, or by Russia, or by any other country of that kind. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not get his facts right before he started to speak.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: What I am concerned about, and what I believe the great majority of people in this country are concerned about, is the practical effect of the broadcasts; and it does not make any difference what piece of paper the Postmaster-General starts to wave about. If Albanian stations continue to broadcast, if stations from Monaco or other places continue to broadcast, they will provide a service which British citizens will be prevented from providing. The British public, if they want to, will be listening to broadcasts from other nations. The Postmaster-General will be able to do nothing about them, and he knows that.
In my constituency alone there will be many people who will not understand why countries in Europe are able to continue providing this kind of service—of which I am in favour—while the Postmaster-General proposes to suppress this kind of service being provided by this country.

Mr. Christopher Rowland: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me which foreign station, legalised by its own domestic Government, is providing this kind of service? At one point I got the impression that there was a large audience for Radio Albania.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman wants to know, I am prepared to read the list of stations which are broadcasting at the present time without authority under the European Agreement. If the hon. Gentleman wants that, I shall be glad to give it to him, with the kilocycles, frequencies, and so on, but I ask him to accept that there are in existence a large number of illegal, if he wants to call them that, stations which are putting out music, news, and so on. They are not covered by the European Convention, and they will be permitted to continue, although British stations will be suppressed.
We have heard about moral obligations. We were told the other day that the Foreign Secretary had sent a remonstrance to Egypt, and then his deputy Minister said that he had sent remonstrances to almost everybody he could think of. It is not remonstrances and moral obligations that count. It is a simple issue. Will foreign radio stations be able to continue to broadcast to this country while British people will be denied the opportunity so to do? Are our people to listen to broadcasts from other people's pirates while we are denied the opportunity of listening to our own?

Mr. Rowland: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to detain the House, he should do us the courtesy of being better informed. Does he not appreciate the distinction between pirate radio stations, which are mainly around our shores, and these other stations to which he has referred, which in every case have been authorised and legalised by the Government of the state from which they broadcast? There are only 10 pirates in Europe. Nine of them are around our shores, and one off the coast of another country. They cannot be confused with Monte Carlo, or with any of the other stations on the list to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the practice with his own theory. It does not make any difference to me whether the Government of Albania, or Byelorussia, or Monaco have said, "Come into our territorial waters and have pirate radio stations and broadcasts". They have legitimated them, and that is their business. I would like us to legitimate the commercial radio stations in our country, just as they have done in theirs. All the hon. Gentleman has shown is that these countries have a great deal more sense than we have.
This is obvious from the fact that they have seen the good sense of legitimating variety of opportunity in radio. We have not done so. When the hon. Gentleman talks about there being only ten pirates in Europe, he is asking the House to accept his and the Postmaster-General's definition of a pirate, irrespective of what the original Convention said.

Mr. Rowland: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—I am not sure whether he is taking exception to them or not—that


all the stations to which he has referred have an international telecommunications B certificate? The 10 stations which are the subject of this legislation are not in that category. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that we ought to legitimate the pirates—this is a debatable point—but he must not confuse them with all the other stations to which he keeps referring.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am not confused. It would be open to the Post master-General—

Mr. Edward Short: On a point of order. I do not want to restrict the hon. Gentleman, but he is confusing two things. He is talking about the Copenhagen Agreement, which is quite different. The new Clause refers to the European Agreement set out in Command Paper 2616, which is a different document. This is a narrow point. The Clause proposes that this legislation shall not be enacted, and that no prosecutions shall take place until it is certified that all the other signatories of the European Convention—not the Convention to which the hon. Gentleman is referring—have taken similar action. This is the only issue that we are discussing. It has nothing to do with the Copenhagen Agreement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving: Order. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) is referring to a Convention and a document which is outside the scope of the new Clause, he is out of order. Perhaps he will tell me whether he is dealing with a document or a Convention which is covered by it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am dealing with the practical effects of this legislation, and my concern is very simply that as a result of this Bill, unless the Clause is accepted, radio stations in other countries will be permitted to continue to broadcast without accepting the obligations which the United Kingdom is hereupon accepting, and that the only sanction the Postmaster-General will have against them, irrespective of the country they are in, will be the moral obligation about which he has been talking and the remonstrances which the British Government will hawk around Europe in the hope that people will take notice. That is the practical effect of it, and we are confronted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to understand the point being made by the hon. Gentleman, but if the control to which he is referring does not exist through the European Agreement he cannot be in order in discussing it on this new Clause. I doubt whether the hon. Member is in order, because he seems to me bringing in a wider field than that covered by the European Agreement which is mentioned in the Clause.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Perhaps I should restrain myself, and restrict myself to the countries referred to in the European Agreement as set out in Command Paper 2616. I shall refer to these countries and, to meet your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to these alone.
I am saying that unless the new Clause is accepted, radio stations which I call commercial free enterprise stations, and to which hon. Gentlemen opposite want to attach the label "pirate", will be able to continue to transmit material audible in the United Kingdom, and probably very much enjoyed here. Those who own and manage them will be able to continue to make money in some cases, or to put out the propaganda of their respective regimes in some cases, and yet British people will not be allowed to do the same. I am saying that this is a strange example of self-imposed double standards. We are to require all our people to subscribe to a strange set of moral notions, and to this petty bumbledom of the Postmaster-General. Our people will have to do that, but others will not.
I asked the Postmaster-General, and he has not replied because he cannot, how he will achieve the discipline on others which he is now to impose on the British. I do not believe that he can do that. I hope that the people of this country will recognise over the months and years ahead that while we have passed legislation, and the suppression, punishment and condemnation which the Postmaster-General seeks has been implemented, others continue to broadcast, and there is nothing that he can do about it.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: It is perhaps a pity that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has been away in the United States as he might otherwise conceivably have been a member of the Standing Committee and


could, during the course of those proceedings, have taken steps to educate himself on the subject. As it is, we have had the disadvantage of his lack of knowledge. On the other hand, we would have had to go through the educative process in the Committee, and that would have been painful at the time.
The Opposition are seeking by this new Clause to do what they sought to do once or twice, or more in Committee; that is to say, saying on the one hand that they agreed with the Government—and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has not yet caught up with this fact—that the pirates should be abolished, but tabling various Amendments intended to have the opposite effect. They could then have been in the satisfactory position, as they were when the Government of the country, of saying in theory that they thought that the pirates should be got rid of but doing nothing whatever about it in practice.
The hon. Member has not yet caught up with that point; he is not yet with the Members of his own Front Bench. He does not wish to get rid of the pirates, while they do. They say, however, that it should not be done yet, for this or that reason, but only at some later stage. That is what they have been telling us all along, and that would be the result of acceptance of the Clause.
The Clause seeks to say, "We will introduce a piece of legislation which will go on the Statute Book, but nothing else will happen until every other country in the area has passed similar legislation". Incidentally, I take it that because of the use of the word "simultaneously" it would all have to happen on the same day, but we will let that go.
I hope that this new Clause will not be pursued. It is a totally wrecking move and, if accepted, would prevent the Bill from coming into effect, which is what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would like to achieve—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Yes, indeed.

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends would admit that that is what they want to achieve. They have been saying precisely the contrary. They said in Committee

that they accepted the principles of the Bill but wished, so they told us then, to improve it. The hon. Member does not want to improve the Bill, but to kill it. That is the object of his exercise, and there should be some getting together on the benches opposite.
It may be that the hon. Member's sojourn in the United States has refreshed his enthusiasm for free enterprise—

Mr. John Peyton: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I find it very surprising that we should be asked to listen to a lesson from him on loyalty to the Front Bench.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Both hon. Members are getting a little away from the new Clause.

Mr. Jenkins: My own Front Bench is very satisfied with my attitude towards it, particularly in relation to this Bill. I think that my right hon. Friends have no complaint, but if they have they will no doubt let me know. I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is disloyal to his Front Bench, but merely that he is a little confused.
The new Clause would virtually strangle the Bill and make it ineffective. If the hon. Member wants to do that, he must support it, but no one can support it who says that there is here something that must be dealt with, that this pirate problem must be handled, and that we have a duty to tackle it—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned me a couple of times, perhaps I might make it absolutely clear that I think that the Bill is misconceived and ought to be thrown out. I believe that if a pirate station is stealing people's copyrights it should be sued, and that if it is interfering with navigation or anything else it should be kicked off that particular wavelength and that particular place. But it is one thing to deal with stations as they exist, and another to gear up the great machinery of Parliament to obliterate them altogether.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his individual point of view, but it will be recognised as an individual point of view that has little in common with the views that have been expressed and will be expressed by his own Front


Bench. As I think I have made absolutely clear, I regard the new Clause as an entirely wrecking endeavour, and I hope that the House will reject it.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: The fact that I am speaking at all is due entirely to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). I congratulate the Postmaster-General on having attracted his hon. Friend's loyalty in a way that a great many of his colleagues have failed to do, but this is no doubt due to the right hon. Gentleman's skill, which I am happy to acknowledge.
I admit that until this argument started between my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and the hon. Gentleman, I was not at all sure where my sympathies lay. There is always difficulty in anyone who was not a member of the Standing Committee intervening on Report, as it is always claimed against him that he is breaking into private ground and does not know the rules of the club, but, at the risk of outraging the sensibility and sensitivity of those who were members of the Committee, I should like to make a few passing observations.
I always very much regret this constant proliferation of the criminal law that we are told is necessary in the public interest. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is one of those who gallops into this position with enthusiasm, and I am sure that he has been careful before making his decision, but I nevertheless find it really abhorrent that Governments should—unless under great pressure and for overwhelming reasons—resort to the criminal law to carry out a policy like this, which is essentially oppressive and suppressive.
I imagine that it all springs from the single fact that people have varying tastes and a certain element of competition at once outrages the larger, more staid and more pompous institutions, which find it difficult to digest. My own view is that we would do well to wait for a period—perhaps not for as long as 10 years or until all countries have ratified the Agreement, but for a number of years—in order to see whether other countries have taken the same power or what considerations have led them to hold their hand.
I believe that there is something to be said for the new Clause, and I hope that

the Postmaster-General will not think that it has been tabled purely from a party point of view. It concerns a matter that to me is one of very deep conviction. I recognise that all Governments, and I am not now talking about parties, find themselves tempted along the path of multiplying the criminal law, and sometimes they make themselves ludicrous by not being able to enforce that law. I hope that the Postmaster-General will have these points in mind.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I do not think that any of us, at least on this side of the Chamber, are eager to extend the criminal law. Such an extension is something that we must all consider very seriously. In this case, we have to consider the fact that the previous Government and this Government decided that action should be taken, but that it was rather useless to take it in isolation when all the other countries involved had no legislation on the subject and had no intention of legislating on it. It was because of that situation that we played a big part in getting this general agreement between the nations of Europe so as to make certain that when we went ahead our activities would not be nullified by these ships being able to obtain their services and supplies from other European countries.
We have gone a long way. It is quite true, as the Postmaster-General said, that a number of signatories have gone much further than we have, but there are others—Holland, for instance—whose action has been summary rather than going through the procedure of legislation. Nevertheless in regard to television pirate stations it achieved its object, although a different way of dealing with the matter was chosen.
I am afraid that if this new Clause were accepted it could start us all over again on a long-winded roundabout way of dealing with the problem. Other nations which have not ratified the Agreement and taken the necessary action would sit back because they saw that Great Britain was sitting back. Then many years could go by with each nation saying, "After you, George" and at the end of the day we would have taken no effective action to find a solution to the problem.
Although I do not like the introduction of Acts of Parliament which bring


more people and more actions under the criminal law, the damage that has been done and is being done by these pirate stations does not need repeating. It has been repeated ad infinitum during the stages of this Bill. This new Clause could lead to a situation in which our action and that of other European nations would be put off for many years.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) paid tribute to the Postmaster-General for his success in winning the loyalty of his hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). I pay the Postmaster-General far greater tribute because, whereas the hon. Member for Putney is generally in favour of the Bill, the Postmaster-General on Second Reading won the allegiance of large numbers of Members of his party who were totally against the Bill. This may have been due to the talents of the right hon. Gentleman exhibited in an earlier incarnation by dint of a three-line Whip. No one knows more than he what threats were exerted to evoke full orthodoxy and voting strength in the Lobbies. From that point of view the right hon. Gentleman deserves all the tributes we can give him.
The hon. Member for Putney tried to ascribe to hon. Members on this side of the House sinister motives in supporting this new Clause, but, if I understood him aright, the Postmaster-General got the point straight away and understood what we are trying to do. That is to give him the strength of his own convictions. He has been using the European Agreement as the basis for his action. This new Clause provides a means to carry that action to its logical conclusion. The Postmaster-General had a certain basis of logic but he did not observe the practical consequences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) pointed out, the Postmaster-General is flouting the interests of listeners. They have shown to what they want to listen and the Gallup Polls have shown that they want the exact opposite to what the Bill provides.
The Postmaster-General said that if we passed the Bill it would enable us to bring pressure to bear on other countries, but that again is the precise opposite of the truth. As soon as we pass the Bill

in its present form we shall be unable to bring pressure to bear on other countries and we shall make ourselves impotent in that regard. The idea that the right hon. Gentleman can bring some persuasion to bear on other countries such as he brought to bear on his hon. Friends on Second Reading is a great misconception. He could bring some pressure to bear if he accepted this new Clause and said to other countries, "Provided you carry out your obligations, we shall carry out ours." That is the way in which countries operate. This country would not then be placed at a disadvantage compared with others. He would have a weapon which could be used if he accepted the Clause.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 4.—(SPECIAL DEFENCE AVAILABLE IN PROCEEDINGS FOR BROADCASTS IN DAYLIGHT HOURS.)

In any proceedings against a person for an offence under this Act it shall be a defence for him to prove that the broadcast was received in the United Kingdom during the hours of daylight—[Mr. Channon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
We have heard on numerous occasions, not only this afternoon but in Standing Committee and on Second Reading, from the Postmaster-General and his supporters of their motives in introducing the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) in his recent intervention referred to the alleged damage which pirate radio stations have caused. I should be interested to hear from him exactly what damage he thinks they have caused.

Mr. Mawby: May I ask my hon. Friend, if it is not too great a burden, to read the speech which I made on Second Reading rather than expect me to repeat what I said on that occasion?

Mr. Channon: Nothing will give me greater pleasure than to read the speech of my hon. Friend, but it is rather difficult for me to do that while I am speaking and I have not had an opportunity of reading that speech. I shall seek a later opportunity to deal with the remarks made by my hon. Friend on Second Reading.
It has always seemed to me that the only argument advanced against the pirate radios which deserves merit, apart from the footling arguments of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) about safety—

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: Mr. R. F. H. Dobson (Bristol, North-East) rose—

Mr. Channon: The hon. Member will have plenty of opportunity to intervene as the night wears on. The only argument of merit has been that of complaints of pirate stations interfering with broadcasts from other stations which, it is claimed, have been adversely affected. Without conceding that at this stage of the argument, I put forward a Clause with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) to deal with broadcasts received in the United Kingdom during the hours of daylight. The point of the argument about interference deals with broadcasts at night. If there is any evidence to the contrary, no doubt the Postmaster-General will produce it. It is said, for various technical reasons with which I am not qualified to deal, that at night interference takes place with other broadcasts. If so, there should be some special defence for broadcasts during daylight hours.
At all stages of the Bill my hon. Friends have been concerned with one thing above all else—the interests of the viewer or the listener. The listener's choice should have paramount consideration. I willingly take the view that these pirate stations should not be put out of business, if that is the wish, until some acceptable alternative is provided. That has not been done by the Government, The Government have shilly-shallied in a ludicrous venture of local radio stations and have produced no satisfactory alternative. I am trying to help them. The assistance which my hon. Friend and I are offering is that they should allow these broadcasts to go on at least in daylight hours. Then the listener, if he wishes, will be able to listen to pirate radio stations during daylight hours but there could not be interference caused during night hours. This is a compromise. All Chief Whips should compromise. Some are more reluctant to do so than others. The Postmaster-General should think about some form of compromise.
5.30 p.m.
As the years pass, I accept that the situation must arrive when pirate radio stations will be replaced by another form of broadcasting. Most people agree with this view. I hope that we shall have some form of local commercial radio. I think that this view is supported by a number of hon. Members. In the end, pirate radio stations must go. My hon. Friend and I would be prepared to accept any Amendment to the Clause to the effect that, when an acceptable alternative has been found, the special defence of broadcasting during daylight hours should be removed. This is a transition phase.
On Second Reading the Postmaster-General said:
I have received complaints from many European countries about this. I would draw the attention of the House particularly to the extreme patience which has been shown by the Italian Government and the Italian broadcasting authorities.… We in this House have a duty to fulfil towards our Italian and other friends in Europe, to ensure that this unwarrantable nuisance … is removed as soon as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February 1967; Vol. 741, c. 630–1.]
If it is an unwarrantable nuisance, my hon. Friend and I have produced a scheme which would entitle people to listen to pirate radio stations during the hours of daylight, and during the evening hours pirate radio stations would not cause the nuisance of which the Postmaster-General and the Italian broadcasting authorities have complained.
Millions of people in this country take pleasure from listening to pirate radio stations. They listen to such stations because no acceptable alternative is provided. If it was, they would listen to it. The consumer has chosen. I do not want the Government to get too deeply entrenched in the stereotyped Socialist attitude of ignoring the wishes of the consumer. The consumer, in this case the listener, comes first. If the listener prefers to listen to pirate radio stations, it is intolerable that the House, in a pettifogging Socialist manner, should try to do away with the pirate radio stations if an acceptable way is found of permitting them still to operate.
I therefore suggest that the Government should accept the Clause, which would provide, at least temporarily until an acceptable alternative is found, that a special defence would be available to


people prosecuted for offences under the Bill. The defence would be that the broadcast was received in the United Kingdom during daylight hours.
The Postmaster-General and his colleagues will, no doubt, find innumerable drafting reasons for not accepting the Clause. It might be argued, for example, that the Measure applied to broadcasts made by British nationals everywhere and that it would therefore be ludicrous that someone in Australia, where the hours of darkness are different from the hours of darkness here, could make the defence that the broadcast was made during the hours of daylight in the United Kingdom. No one in his senses would put up such an argument. I am sure that the Postmaster-General will advance arguments on grounds of principle rather than on grounds of drafting.
I shall not detain the House much longer because I have no doubt that other hon. Members will wish to speak—during the hours of daylight, not during the night. My hon. Friend and I would be prepared to accept any reasonable compromise and any drafting Amendments that the Postmaster-General might wish to make. We wish to preserve the listener's right to choose. We do so by providing an acceptable compromise which would enable people to make the defence that their broadcast was received in the United Kingdom during the hours of daylight, when, I am informed, there is no interference.

Mr. Anthony Berry: Eager as I am to hear the Postmaster-General accept at any rate the principle, if not the wording, of the Clause, I feel that I must make a few remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) moved the Clause with his customary gusto. His speech was somewhat shorter than usual, but I appreciate that he wants me to finish my speech in daylight.
I did not follow my hon. Friend's earlier remarks as closely as I would have liked, because I was eagerly going through the Second Reading speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), which caused me a certain amount of confusion. I have found one paragraph which I think is relevant. I

was almost diverted by one reference to pornographic novels, but I have eventually arrived at this paragraph:
The fact that there is a shortage of medium wavelength bands means that any further services must be provided on v.h.f.
That does not detract in any way from the Clause, because the Clause refers only to daylight hours. The night hours will be dealt with by my hon. Friend and myself on new Clause No. 5.
Throughout our proceedings on the Bill, and particularly in his speech on Second Reading, the Postmaster-General has made out that the overlapping and stealing of other countries' wavelengths by pirate radio stations has been almost the major factor which led him to introduce the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech on Second Reading:
They "—
that is, the pirates—
…'pirate' wavelengths which have been assigned by Governments to legitimate broadcasting authorities.
Pirate broadcasters deliberately put themselves outside these controls and seize any wavelengths which best suit their purpose, whatever the effect their transmissions may have on the radio services of other countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1967; Vol. 741, cc. 627–87.]
During daylight hours they do not do those things. On the medium wave, during daylight hours broadcasts carry only over a comparatively short distance. That is why my hon. Friend and I refer specifically in the Clause to daylight hours. The technical phrase—my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes will correct me if I am wrong—is what is known as a primary service area. The reflection effects are practically nonexistent for standard broadcasts during daylight hours. In other words, it is a very limited area which is covered by these broadcasts.
People prosecuted under the Bill should be able to make the defence provided for in the Clause that they have broadcast during daylight hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West said that the Bill provides no alternatives. We on this side feel strongly about that. My hon. Friend also referred to the Government's lack of consideration for the consumer. I have many thousands of constituents who listen to pirate radio stations during daylight, and also possibly


during the evening. They will be upset it these stations are closed down without any alternative being provided. However, I cannot pursue that point on the Clause.
My hon. Friend and I have shown that the effect of these broadcasts in daylight is very different from the effect at night time. If the Clause were accepted my hon. Friend, and I would not only have greatly improved the Bill; we should also have done the Postmaster-General and the Government a great service.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I support the new Clause. Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will appreciate that I supported almost all the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on various Amendments and had the pleasure of moving a number of them myself when my hon. Friend had to go on work of national importance, including addressing the Hitchin Ladies Conservative Tea Club. It was not for that reason that I did not attach my name to this new Clause. It was because I had some honest reservations about it. It is clear that my hon. Friend has designed the new Clause to get round the various objections which the Government have made to our suggested alterations, but I am a little reluctant to support my hon. Friend's alternative, because I believe that the Government's objections themselves have not been substantiated. If the Government had proved the case for their objections, it might have been a useful exercise to try to get round them.

Mr. Channon: I accept that point of view. It is only because the Government are pressing ahead with this ludicrous Bill that I am trying to devise some compromise which will make this intolerably bad Bill a fraction better.

Mr. Taylor: I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate my hon. Friend on having made this proposal, and I am sure that we shall have an interesting debate upon it.
However, the objections which the Government have advanced have not been argued. For example, they have spoken of the shortage of wavelengths. In 1948, a plan was drawn up and the plain fact is that about 50 per cent, of the stations now operating were provided for in that

plan. The Government do not need new powers to permit local sound broadcasting. Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, which I read rather carefully before coming to this debate, the Government have power to license local sound radio stations.

Mr. Edward Short: On a point of order. I do not want to curtail debate or to stop the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), as he knows. However, this is simply a new Clause which would make it a defence if a broadcast were received in the United Kingdom during the hours of daylight. It has nothing to do with alternatives.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. I was about to remind the hon. Member that the scope of the new Clause is very limited. This is not a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Channon: Further to that point of order. Is it not an argument in favour of the new Clause to say that if there were an acceptable alternative, the new Clause would not be necessary?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that is in order on the new Clause is a discussion of whether it should be a defence to prove that a broadcast was received during the hours of daylight.

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry if I transgressed. It was not my intention to do so and I was simply leading to a question which is relevant. Can the Postmaster-General confirm or deny that the Wireless Telegraph Act, 1949, with which he will be familiar, gives the Government power to allow daytime broadcasting by pirate stations? That seems to be the case because of the nonexclusive nature of the B.B.C. Charter, but I should like confirmation.
Under the present Government, as with most things, daylight comes a little later in Scotland than in the rest of the country, but this is not a major objection in principle. The new Clause would enable us to continue pirate radio stations in a limited way throughout the country, and that is very important to areas like Scotland where there are not the various alternatives which are available elsewhere. I tried to explain in Committee that in some parts of Scotland, in particular in Argyllshire and the Highlands, a pirate


station is the only radio or television programme received. It is all very well for hon. Members like the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) to support the Bill without deviation, because in their constituencies people have all kinds of radio and television programmes and although their constituents may not be better off for some of the programmes which they get, at least they have a wide choice. In some parts of Scotland we have only Radio Scotland provided from a pirate ship, and unless we have some relief such as that proposed in the new Clause, we shall be cut off from this contact with so-called civilisation and lose such form of entertainment as the people in these areas have. If there were some form of compromise, the Government should carefully consider it.
5.45 p.m.
This is a very strange Bill, because every argument which the Government have put forward in its support has been utterly and completely demolished by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is difficult to argue for a compromise when the Government's basic argument has never been substantiated. However, the new Clause would provide a halfway house and we could preserve some local sound broadcasting and bring relief to parts of the country where there is nothing else. I hope that the Government will consider the problem of remote areas where no alternative service is provided and will not think only of the plush areas like Putney and Meriden where local people have all the services of radio and television and the prospect of colour television. I hope that the Government will have some regard for areas where the pirate radio stations are the only means of entertainment, so that at least we can have sound radio from them during the daylight hours.
Perhaps there is more need in the hours when we do not have daylight, because in some of these areas they do not even have that extra pleasure of electric light. These remote areas and their problems should be remembered when we discuss this compromise, and if the Government regard this compromise as entirely unacceptable, I hope that they will find another. For example, would

it not be possible to redraft the Clause so that areas of Scotland would be able to continue having these programmes during daylight and night hours. It ought to be possible to change the wording of the Clause to cover the serious difficulties which I have mentioned.

Mr. Dobson: I listened with amusement, as we have listened with amusement before, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). I know that he means well, but I would have much preferred him to say categorically as he appeared to be starting to say, that he was not in favour of the new Clause. I am not in favour of it.
I start from that point because of something which the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said about me. He said that most of the things which I had said on Second Reading had not been proven or come to pass. However, that is demonstrably untrue. If he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that I was interrupted by one of my hon. Friends—which proves something about interference—and that in the speech which we were again recommended by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) to read, and which I browsed through very quickly, there is substantiation of many of the arguments which I put forward a little earlier in that debate.
This is the issue of whether we should agree to broadcasts being received in the United Kingdom during the hours of daylight. Technical problems immediately arise about what are the hours of daylight, and the hon. Member for Cathcart himself almost got into a detailed discussion of that issue. When discussing wireless wavebands, it has to be remembered that it is daylight in some areas when it is not daylight in others. I accept that it is said that the programme would be received in daylight, but the period of daylight varies from place to place, quite substantially between some areas. That would make it difficult to implement the Clause.

Mr. Channon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not basing his case on that argument, because it can be met at once. Any hours of daylight can be defined—perhaps by the use of lighting-up times. It is an indefensible argument to say that


the hours of daylight cannot be defined, for nothing is easier than finding such an acceptable definition. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will base his arguments on principle rather than on drafting.

Mr. Dobson: There is a very good example of how such a difficulty could arise. It has been suggested that interference is caused only at night time, but that is not true. There can be interference to a ship which is passing close to a station working in daylight or at night. If there is interference, it is as possible for it to occur in the daytime as at night. Hon. Members have been arguing that there would be no interference with other countries during the daytime, but they are ignoring the fact that there could be interference with people operating in this country during daylight. It is probably not true to say that there would be no interference with other countries during daylight.
In any case, even if one could not demonstrate that it was not true from a technical point of view, I am sure that we could produce technical experts to say that it was possible to have interference of this kind. I remember being in mid-Atlantic during the war and listening at one and the same time to a distress message from a ship which had been torpedoed and interruptions in that message from Walvis Bay, in South-West Africa. This was on the medium wave, very much the same sort of wavelength as that used by the pirate stations to which hon. Members have referred.
It is possible to have interference in daylight, and such interference is not necessarily local. Transmissions of this sort can cause wide interference. Purely on technical grounds, I regard the new Clause as bad. No need can be shown for this type of provision. As the hon. Member for Southend, West and others have said many times, the pirate stations are illegal and they cause a nuisance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the decency now to withdraw his Clause.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My only objection to the new Clause is that it goes nowhere near far enough. The only place in the United Kingdom where I can imagine the phrase "during the hours of daylight" being adequate to meet my wishes in the matter is in the extreme north of Scotland. It may be that daylight hours in

Thurso and Wick would enable one to listen until almost midnight, and that would meet at least some of my concern in the matter.
I am concerned about the consumer, as all of us on this side of the House are. Those who listen to the free commercial radio stations in daylight are not just irresponsible teen-agers. They are some of the most useful and productive people in the country. I speak here from direct experience in my constituency. I have come across lorry drivers, for example, who find the pirate radio stations to which they can listen in daylight a useful companion on long journeys, and they have said to me that, if those radio stations were driven out of existence, they would find their journeys more lonely and they would not enjoy their work anywhere near so much.
Many factory workers in East Anglia listen with pleasure regularly to the broadcasts which are at present available to them in daylight hours. If these music stations are taken from them, people will not so readily enjoy the long hours of drudgery which many of them have to do at machines, and so on, in factories.
The same is true of tractor drivers. The Postmaster-General is not a well-known agriculturist. I assure him that, if he goes about to watch men ploughing in the fields of West Suffolk, he will find many a tractor driver, with a transistor radio set slung across his cab, listening to the pirate radio broadcasts during daylight.
Above all, there is the housewife. My interest in pirate radio stations—I confess that I never listened to them till this happened—arose when I was going from door to door at a by-election some years ago. I found housewife after housewife listening to a kind of music which I had never heard before. I admit that it was a revelation to me, and I asked them where the music came from. I was told that they got it from Radio Caroline, Radio London and so on, and only then did I become aware of these stations and start listening to them.

Mr. Rowland: How can the hon. Gentleman, with his long and distinguished record of residence in the United States, say that he had never heard this kind of station before?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I had never before heard these stations which are audible in the United Kingdom. I assure the House that housewives in my constituency and, I believe, in all hon. Members' constituencies listen regularly and with pleasure to these stations during the daylight hours.
Another splendid example of a daylight listener is the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Postmaster-General, who once told an interviewer that he listened —I do not know whether he still does—to Radio Caroline in the mornings while loofahing his back in the bath. I do not know whether the present Postmaster-General does that—I doubt it—but it is interesting that a distinguished Minister of the present Government admitted that during daylight hours he listened to Radio Caroline.
What will happen if the pirate radio stations are blotted out in daylight hours? In my constituency it is frequently impossible to receive the B.B.C. programmes in daylight. It is no use hon. Members opposite saying that this is the fault of the pirates. The simple answer is that the power of the radio broadcasts which the B.B.C. puts out is inadequate. Perhaps it ought to have more capital and better equipment. Whatever the reason, the fact is that large numbers of people in West Suffolk often cannot receive the B.B.C. programmes well during daytime.
Not long ago, in my own cottage I had the radio set on and the only B.B.C. programme one could hear was a series of lessons in Chinese. My wife preferred to listen to Radio Caroline. If the Postmaster-General has his way, my wife will be deprived of the music which she enjoys and she will have to listen to lessons in Chinese, whether she likes it or not. She can switch off, of course, and she may be advised to do that if she is confronted by a B.B.C. monopoly.
The effect of the new Clause is to ask that the British people be allowed to continue listening to free enterprise commercial radio in daylight. This must be right. It must be right because the people have demonstrated again and again that that is what they want. The Government want to deprive the British people of something which they have demonstrated that they desire, and it is

for that reason that I have the greatest pleasure in supporting this Clause and any other which would work in that direction.

Mr. Edward Short: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) is, I believe, a spokesman in this House for the Police Federation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regard that as a most mischievous, impertinent and invidious observation by the Postmaster-General, and I hope that he will with draw it. I am not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It is an observation which one is entitled to make in debate.

Mr. Short: I withdraw the words that the hon. Gentleman is a spokesman in the House. He is a paid official, a paid spokesman, of the Police Federation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that?

Mr. Short: No.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If the Postmaster-General wishes to refer to my affiliation with the Police Federation, will he please get it right? I should be glad to advise him in detail on what my relation is to the Federation.

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman referred to the pirate stations as free enterprise commercial stations. Does he know that we have prosecuted all the stations which are believed to be within the jurisdiction, that in every case we have obtained a conviction, that in one case a station has been prosecuted and fined heavily twice and it is still broadcasting today, defying the law? Yet the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Police Federation, talks about them here as knights in shining armour.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) asked me to deal with this question on the basis of principle and not drafting. I shall do that. I think that the drafting of the new Clause is all right.
There is a misunderstanding about the technical factors involved. Whether or not a particular broadcast is received in the United Kingdom depends on a number of technical factors. On the medium


wave, it is mainly the design of the receiving rather than the transmitting installation which determines whether the broadcast can be received. That is a factor which is independent of the culpability of the broadcaster and his supporters.
Medium-wave transmissions do not carry nearly so far in daylight as in darkness. In daylight, the problem may be to hear a distant station at all, whereas in darkness the problem is to disentangle it from a host of other stations which can then be heard. It follows that if a station is received on an ordinary receiver in the United Kingdom in daylight it is likely to be fairly near the United Kingdom. Therefore, the new Clause would encourage broadcasters to set up their stations as near to the shores of the United Kingdom as possible.
6.0 p.m.
Moreover, it can be safely said that if a station is likely to be received in the United Kingdom during daylight it is even more likely to be received during darkness. Therefore, if the Clause were adopted, it would virtually have the effect of allowing pirate broadcasting to carry on with impunity and so defeat the whole purpose of the Bill and of the European Agreement, in which the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) played a great part when the Conservative Government were in office.
However, it may be that the hon. Members who support the Clause intend merely that it shall have the effect that proceedings shall not be instituted in connection with pirate stations which operate only during the hours of daylight. I agree that there could be a glimmer of reason behind that. During daylight, pirate stations cause much less widespread interference to other radio services than during the hours of darkness. But that is not sufficient justification for exempting them from the Bill. It remains necessary for the wavelengths and other technical characteristics of all radio transmitting stations to be regulated by Governments and to prevent the freedom of the high seas being used for the evasion of copyright obligations, to say nothing of the potential dangers to shipping, which are not a lot of "hooey" but are a real and ever-present danger so long as those ships operate.
I agree with the hon. Member who spoke about the threat to individual freedom. I am as concerned as anybody else about that in the present age, whatever Government is in office. I am all for preserving as much individual freedom as possible, but if anything in this world needs to be regulated it is broadcasting. If the pirate stations were legalised or ignored they would proliferate. If the Government of Great Britain said today, "We shall ignore the pirate stations or legalise them", we should immediately have not 10 but dozens of them around our shores.
That would create complete chaos in the ether within a very short time, even in daylight. This is quite a small country and that would be inevitable. The pirate stations are very high-powered; one only needs to listen to Radio 390 in London to realise how high-powered they are. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) pointed out that Radio Scotland, which was on a ship moored in the Clyde until the Procurator Fiscal intervened, was the only station which could be heard in the far North of Scotland. Clearly, if Radio Scotland could be heard in the North of Scotland during daylight, Radio 390, with a much more powerful transmitter, could be heard over large parts of Europe during the hours of daylight. I therefore cannot accept a compromise which would half legalise and half outlaw the pirate stations.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Could the Postmaster-General say something about the possibility of beaming broadcasts? Whereas Radio 390 could be heard in Europe if beamed towards it, it is technically possible to beam and screen broadcasts in a certain direction. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's final point would be met if the ships were beamed westwards rather than eastwards.

Mr. Short: That is based on the premise that they are legalised or licensed. That does not come under the new Clause, which concerns whether it should be a defence that a broadcast was received in the United Kingdom during the hours of daylight.

Mr. Channon: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman conceded that there was a glimmer of reason in the new Clause, and that he thinks that we have a case.
But it is typical of him that although he concedes that we have a case he will do nothing about it. He talks of a threat to individual freedom, but goes on to threaten it himself because he is taking away people's rights. The only reason I do not ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Clause is that I agree with their criticisms that it does not go far enough; I should not like it to go out from this House that I wished only that the new Clause should be acted upon by itself.
Therefore, I shall ask leave to withdraw the new Clause, although one thing that nearly made me ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for it was the totally unworthy and untypical smear which the Postmaster-General sought to make at the opening of his speech, which thoroughly disgusted me. But I do not wish to raise the temperature further and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5.—(VERY HIGH FREQUENCY BROADCASTS.)

Nothing in this Act shall apply to broadcasts made over wavelengths of very high frequency.—[Mr. Channon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-gate (Mr. Berry) and I have unwillingly moved along this path because the Government have refused to give up broadcasts in daylight hours. The Clause is the most modest thing that anyone in my position could ask the Government to concede.
I believe that the charge the Government levy against the pirate radio stations is that they use medium wavebands and broadcast at high power, so that their transmissions go a long way and cause a great deal of interference. My suggestion that broadcasts should at least be allowed over very high frequencies is a transitory measure, because I accept that it is not a final solution to the problem.
I am glad that it appears that the Assistant Postmaster-General will reply to the debate, because we had some discussions during the Second Reading debate

about V.H.F. One of my criticisms then against the Government's new proposed local radio stations was that they would broadcast on V.H.F., which would mean, at any rate at the start, that they would not reach a large number of people.
But that is not an argument for the Government to use against the pirate radio stations, because they do not care whether they reach a large audience or not. Since the Postmaster-General saw a glimmer of compromise in the last new Clause I put forward, I should have thought that he would at least consider favourably this modest proposal to allow broadcasting on V.H.F., which would completely meet the arguments about shortage of wavebands and interference.
I accept that broadcasts on V.H.F. will not reach the same large audience as broadcasts under the previous new Clause, but I believe that it would be possible for those who really wanted to obtain pirate radio services until an alternative is provided to listen to them if they wished. I understand that they would not be able to listen to them on car radios, which is also a criticism that many of us have of the Government's new radio services. Although the Assistant Postmaster-General intervened in my speech during the Second Reading debate, I think that I am right in saying that it will not be possible—or will at least be very exceptional—for anyone with a car radio to receive the new local broadcasting stations.

Mr. Rowland: Has the hon. Gentleman been able to consult any of the pirate radio station operators on whether they will get sufficient advertising revenue if they broadcast only during daylight hours or on the restricted range of the V.H.F. waveband?

Mr. Channon: I have not. I have been very careful during the whole proceedings on the Bill not to consult the pirate radio station operators. I think that even if it makes me less well informed it enables me to speak without any hon. Member being able to tell me that I am contaminated by the views of the pirates, views which they often resent and dislike. I have not consulted the pirate radio stations about this matter. Perhaps they will not want to do this. That may be the case, so that even if the Government were to accept this final modest plea from my hon. Friend and


me, and then the pirate radio stations did not want it, who would be happier than the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland)? Surely he should not pray that argument in aid against my argument. He ought to be delighted, and let my Clause go through, and perhaps see his aim achieved just the same. I am amazed that he brings out that argument.
What my hon. Friend and I are seeking is what is the worst and least of all possible concessions, but we are doing it as a final desperate attempt to get some concession from the Government. I hope that if the Government intend to show any spirit of reason, any spirit of compromise to allow the listener to choose the programmes he wants to listen to, they will at least make this extremely modest concession.
I do not move the Clause with any great hope of success of getting the concession because I have learned from bitter experience during the progress of the Bill that the Postmaster-General and Assistant Postmaster-General put up a stone wall against every concession asked for. They have taken an almost sadistic delight in depriving listeners of the pleasure which they have had in the last few years of listening to the stations they like.
It is with no feeling of confidence that I put forward this proposal; it is a despairing plea to the Government; but I ask them to concede this request, at this last attempt we make, to allow broadcasts over wavelengths of very high frequency which will not cause all the troubles the Government have outlined in discussions on previous Amendments.
I do hope that even at this late stage of the Bill the Government will be prepared to concede this modest proposal which my hon. Friend and I make to improve the Bill.

Mr. Berry: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), I, also, hope that we may, even at this late hour, obtain some slight satisfaction from the Government by their accepting this new Clause. I follow my hon. Friend again because we had that faint glimmer of hope extended to us through the remarks of the Postmaster-General on the last new Clause, and also because the Assistant Postmaster-General,

who, I presume, is to reply to this debate, seemed so sad at the conclusion of our discussions in Committee upstairs that he had not been able to accept any of our Amendments. I feel sure that it would make him tremendously happy this evening, on behalf of the Government, to see his way to accepting this new Clause.
Many of the arguments which my hon. Friend has rightly put forward on this Clause are similar to those which applied to the last. We think we have found a way of allowing these broadcasts to take place without causing to foreign countries that great disturbance which has been the cause of a lot of the discussion and controversy over the present pirate radio stations.
Indeed, I believe that this Clause would cover the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) during our last discussion, because the very high frequency services have an extremely limited range, a range limited to approximately the horizon as seen from the transmitting antennae, that is to say, from about 50 to 100 miles, and with the development of the technique of radio transmission at those very high frequencies modulation of the frequencies can be applied to reduce interference.
It is possible to duplicate the programme assignments of those transmission modulation stations within comparatively short distances without causing interference between them, and we know from the Government's White Paper, if I may paraphrase it, that about 150 towns and cities in the country will in due course, if the Government's plan goes through, be able to be served by it during darkness as well as during daylight by very high frequency stations.
6.15 p.m.
Therefore, in proposing this Clause we are not asking the Government to give a tremendous concession, but it would give great satisfaction to people who have listened to and enjoyed these stations over the past years, and who are now to be deprived of their pleasure by this Government's action, and deprived of it without any alternative being put in its place.
I put this plea to the Assistant Postmaster-General. I know he would like to accept the Clause. I feel it would give great satisfaction to many people


throughout the country, not least to my constituents and those in the areas surrounding them and who will be voting in the London elections next week.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I support this new Clause because the case the Government have made against free commercial radio stations rests on a number of charges none of which can possibly be laid against radio stations using very high frequencies.
May I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to say, when he replies to the debate, whether he has in his possession any objections from foreign countries about radio stations using very high frequencies? Has he those objections from some of our international partners? Can he show that there has been interference in any way with shipping by broadcasts over wavelengths of very high frequency?
Has the hon. Gentleman got this evidence? Has he got any evidence of interference with our own B.B.C. programmes from broadcasts made over wavelengths of very high frequency? If he has not got this evidence, how can he possibly object to the new Clause?
May I also ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to convey my regret to his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, who has now left the Chamber, that he indulged, last time he spoke at the Dispatch Box, in a smear and then left the Chamber? This, apparently, is the new technique of smear and run. We have seen a great deal of it from the Prime Minister, and I am sorry to see that the Postmaster-General is following that bad example.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Chan-non) said that my right hon. Friend and I were taking a more or less sadistic delight in turning down Amendments presented by him and other Members, because we were unable to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Channon: No. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but I did not say that at all. Ministers have listened to our case with extreme courtesey on practically every occasion. What I said was that they took a sadistic delight in taking away the

pleasure of listeners. That is a very different thing. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have taken a sadistic delight in taking away, by the Bill, pleasures of the listeners.

Mr. Slater: I am beginning to wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, in making his remarks, understands the word "sadistic". Throughout the whole of my public career I have never allowed myself to fall to such a low level of mind or attitude as could be characterised even approximately as being connected with sadism.
However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, in moving this new Clause, talked about it as a modest Clause. He said he was moving along this path unwillingly. All of us concerned with the Bill may say that as well, but one of the main reasons for this legislation is to minimise the amount of radio interference in Europe.
I have to remind the hon. Member that broadcasts on very high frequency are also capable of causing interference. The only difference is that the range of V.H.F. stations is shorter and wavelengths can successfully be shared between countries somewhat closer together than is possible in the medium wave band. I know that this is only a difference of degree, but if people were allowed to operate radio transmitters in the V.H.F. band without regulation, chaos would result.
For example, there would be no way of preventing people from setting up any number of V.H.F. stations just outside the territorial limits and thereby sabotaging almost all the extensive network of V.H.F. broadcasting stations which, during recent years—including under the last Conservative Administration—has been built up by the B.B.C. The same thing could happen to V.H.F. networks of other countries.
Governments have recognised the dangers and wavelengths in the V.H.F. band have been shared out between different countries in agreements similar in nature to the Copenhagen Agreement, which laid the foundation for the present allocation of medium wave lengths. The current agreement for broadcasting stations in the V.H.F. band in Europe is the Stockholm Agreement of 1961.
As my right hon. Friend and I have repeatedly tried to make clear during the


passage of the Bill, its purpose is to implement the European Agreement and restore the rule of law in broadcasting. The agreement says nothing about excepting V.H.F. broadcasting. Uncontrolled V.H.F. stations could cause all manner of interference with aviation and defence radio services as well as with broadcasting services and could be used for reckless or insidious propaganda.
Finally, the abuse of the copyright law would be as pernicious as it is now, if not more so. It could easily become worse because television programmes can be transmitted by V.H.F. and the proposed Clause would put copyright in films at the mercy of pirate programmes. For these reasons, the Government cannot accept the Clause. I know that the hon. Member for Southend, West is very sincere in his presentation of his case, but in the circumstances I must ask the House not to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Assistant Postmaster-General has—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Channon: I am not surprised by the Assistant Postmaster-General's reply. He did not show any obvious delight in rejecting the new Clause, so I will withdraw my words about him, "sadistic delight". Perhaps "masochistic delight" would be more appropriate to him. With respect to him, I have seldom heard a weaker answer to a very modest request. He answered no point that was put to him. It is only to save my right hon. and hon. Friends from the weariness of going through the Lobby that I am led to beg leave to withdraw the Motion, and also because they could rightly say that I was settling not for half a loaf but for one crust if we were to vote for it.
I will only add my disappointment that the new, gritty, purposive approach of the Assistant Postmaster-General, as contrasted with the approach of the Postmaster-General, has failed to produce any significant change in place of the poor, wretched and, in the Postmaster-General's case, sadistic wish to deprive the listener of one of the few pleasures

left him in Socialist Britain. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7.—(APPLICATION TO ISLE OF MAN.)

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall not extend to the Isle of Man until a petition has been received by Her Majesty from Tynwald asking for its provisions to be so extended.—[Mr. Ian Gilmour.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
New Clause 1 was concerned with reciprocal obligations the Government will seek to impose on other countries before the Bill comes into force. This Clause is concerned with the obligations of the Government towards the people living within the boundaries of the United Kingdom. The basis of the situation with which this new Clause seeks to deal is that the Tynwald has thrown out a similar Bill. It has refused to enact a Measure banning marine broadcasting ships. As the Assistant Postmaster-General said in Standing Committee:
I will admit that there is considerable opposition to this legislation in the Isle of Man—
I think that that is an understatement.

Mr. Dobson: Would the hon. Gentleman like to complete the quotation?

Mr. Gilmour: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) interrupted the Assistant Postmaster-General at that point to say:
And in Britain.
The Assistant Postmaster-General went on:
—but this cannot impair the power to make an Order in Council …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 16th March, 1967; c.271.]
That is a rather different point.
The point I am making is that there is considerable opposition to this legislation in the Isle of Man. I do not think that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) disputes that. The fact that the Assistant Postmaster-General went on to assert a constitutional principle which is admittedly undeniable is not relevant to the remarks I am making. I fully concede that the power referred


to by the Assistant Postmaster-General in that passage does lie within the constitutional right of this Parliament to make laws for the Isle of Man. I conceded that in Standing Committee. But I submit that this is not an occasion for the Government to operate against the Isle of Man.
Many descriptions have been flung at the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General, ranging from "sadistic" to "masochistic", to "stonewall" and "steamrolling". All of these expressions reflect insensitivity in one way or another by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman to our arguments.
The constitutional background to this position is fairly clear. The Isle of Man has been growing in independence over the last few years. In debate on the Isle of Man Act, 1958, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), then Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, said that it would restore
… to the island its independence in fiscal and several other matters.
He talked about the Measure
demonstrating our interest in the future of that loyal and happy island which gave us generous help in men, lives and money during the last two wars."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1958; Vol. 580, c. 902.]
Without making the point about "sadism" again, I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General would not want to make that island unhappy now.
Two years later, in 1960, my right hon. and learned Friend, in a debate on the Isle of Man, said:
It is the independence of the Isle of Man which governs the constitutional position with which we are faced. Her Majesty's Government are not the Government of the Isle of Man. Her Majesty is, of course, the Queen of the Isle of Man, as she is of her other possessions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1960; Vol. 621, c. 850.]
Even higher constitutional authority the same year came from the present Master of Trinity, when he said that
… a Minister should listen and pay attention to the views of the House of Commons and, equally, I think, to the constitutional position of the desirability of retaining the independent power of the Manx Legislature to legislate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1960; Vol. 622, c. 1260.]
That is the background to the constitutional position. The historical background

is even starker, because this sort of conflict between the Westminster Parliament and the Isle of Man Parliament has not arisen for over 200 years. It happens by coincidence that this confrontation is arising just at the moment when the regions and outlying areas of the country are flexing their muscles. They are tired of central Government control and wish to be given freedom to manage their own affairs. The Government have felt the backlash of that feeling in recent by-elections, and the Isle of Man, in its action over the Bill, shows that it has the same feeling.
The new Clause is a test of the genuineness of the Government's intentions to pay attention to the susceptibilities and wishes of the outlying regions or outlying nationalities of Wales, Scotland, the Isle of Man and other places and not legislate blindly and dictatorially merely to satisfy their own ideological susceptibilities. The Clause is a test of the Government's attitude to localism and regional government.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: A voice from the distant past prompted me to search in the Library for some previous references to the Isle of Man. There was a debate in the House on 22nd July, 1952, on the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) sought very properly to give the House some background information about the island, the affairs of which were under discussion.
I should be the first to admit that it is impertinent of me to raise this point in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), because it was he, with his normal courtesy and erudition, who answered the debate. He and the House will forgive me if I do not repeat all of my right hon. Friend's remarks. I did not propose to refer to them because, as always, they are unchallengeable and their value stands without need of commendation from me.
But some very interesting comments were made by the hon. Member for Old-ham, West, who intolerably annoyed your predecessor, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He pointed out that for the House of Commons to conduct legislation dealing with the island without abundant proof that opinion in the island had been consulted would be an intolerable insult


to the Tynwald. He regaled the House with all sorts of interesting information. For instance, he pointed out that the Stanley family had at one time been owners of the island and that they had sold it to the United Kingdom. He said:
I am sure the Financial Secretary will agree that it is a matter of great complexity, and the time has come when there should be some effort at clarification. Things in the island have altered very much since it was purchased by this country for £70,000 in the reign of George III. It is fair to say—and this is an important matter in considering fiscal issues—that there has not been a great deal of alteration in the population."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 458–9.]
I wonder whether the Postmaster-General, who probably was present on that occasion since, if my memory does not fail me, he was a Government Whip at that time—

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: The Postmaster-General was then in opposition, as he will shortly be again.

Mr. Peyton: That was a slip of the tongue. My right hon. Friend's memory is almost up to his skill in prophecy.
I am absolutely astonished that on that occasion the Chair should have set such a tremendous example of tolerance, which I know you would always wish to follow, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I would not wish to trespass upon it. Had I had this inspiration before, I could have quarried more deeply into the volume in my hand and no doubt would have been able to give from the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West a great deal more highly relevant information about the Isle of Man.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I recall the debate perfectly well; I think that I took part in it. I remember that the Chair had occasion to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) to the scope of the debate. My recollection is that that debate had a much wider scope and much greater reference to the history of the Isle of Man than would be permitted in a discussion of this new Clause.

Mr. Peyton: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that depends on the angle from which one views the matter. However, perhaps I can conclude my remarks, in so far as they depend on this

volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT, with this quotation:
I suffered a deep sense of mortification, Mr. Hopkin Morris, when you said on an earlier occasion in our consideration of this Measure you were inclined to be bored."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 933.]
I quote that only because, partly due to my brevity and partly due to your courtesy and generosity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have not shown the slightest sign of being bored.
I ask the Postmaster-General whether full consultations have taken place with the Isle of Man, or whether Tynwald opinion is being overriden in this Measure. I understand that there is local opposition in the Isle of Man, and I have a great horror of the idea that minority opinions should be trodden down ruthlessly simply because to do so is convenient to the majority. I recognise that the majority has rights, but, as I said in my opening shot in this engagement, I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is not one of those who is always running to the argument of the national interest, the need for Ministerial discretion and the rest.
I accept entirely that he does not wish to override the rights of the citizen, but I hope that he will be able to assure us that he has consulted local opinion in the Isle of Man and has been able to placate objections to measures which he regards as necessary.

Mr. Edward Short: I think that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) should withdraw his comment that I would shortly be in opposition. I have no intention of crossing the Floor.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Of course, it will be done for the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Short: That is rather obscure.
The position about the extension of the Bill to the Isle of Man was explained in Committee. It is, as has been said, starkly simple. No amount of opportunist propaganda by the Opposition or by the rather slick operators of Radio Caroline can change it. It would be better if hon. Members refrained from trying to provoke argument between the Government and the island authorities.
To rehearse the constitutional position, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) clearly informed the Committee that
… when it is desired to apply United Kingdom legislation within the Island, it is done, not directly by provision in the Act itself, but indirectly by the insertion of a provision in the Act enabling it to be extended by Order in Council … The adoption of this procedure enables the Island to be consulted before Imperial legislation is applied to it, and this right to consultation is a matter to which great importance is attached in the Island."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 2nd March, 1967, c. 40.]
I think that that answers the point of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). That is exactly what is being done in the Bill. There is nothing about the Bill which would justify any departure from that standard practice in either direction. There is no justification for rewording the Bill either to prevent it from being applied to the island or to make its application to the island mandatory. We are following the standard form in Bills of this kind.
We cannot at this stage take cognisance of the current debate in Tynwald. We understand that these debates turn on the question whether Tynwald wishes to cover some of the matters covered in this Bill in legislation of its own. The eventual outcome of those debates will affect only the representations which the island may wish to make when the Bill has been passed and the island is formally notified of the intention to make an Order in Council under Clause 10. Nothing in the current debate in the island affects the provisions which it is proper for us to make in the Bill for the extension of the Bill to the island.
It is entirely proper for hon. Members to inquire of the Government's intention concerning the extension of the Bill to the island. Those intentions were explained in Committee when the Committee was told:
… Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the need to apply this legislation to the whole of the British Islands without delay, and intend that this shall be done …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 16th March, 1967; c. 270.]
The absurdity of the wording of the proposed Clause illustrates how wrong it would be to depart from the standard provision. The proposed wording would

have the effect that in giving her assent to the Bill Her Majesty would be ordering herself not to exercise her sovereignty over the island until the island specifically asked her to do so.
One can sympathise with the predicament in which hon. Members found themselves when framing the proposed Clause. However they worded it, the effect would be absurd for the perfectly simple reason that the only provision which it is proper to make in the Bill on this subject is the provision already contained in Clause 10.

Mr. Channon: I did a little research on the Isle of Man before the Committee stage of the Bill and the only serious question that I have has to do with the Postmaster-General making an Order in Council. Can this be prayed against in the House, or do we have no right to debate such an Order? My second question is can he give us any recent precedent for Orders in Council of this kind being imposed upon the Tynwald, when the Isle of Man has shown itself so unwilling to accept it? Can he give a recent example of any United Kingdom legislation being imposed on the Isle of Man when the Tynwald has been completely unwilling to accept it.

Mr. Rowland: I would like to refer to a statement made by the Assistant Postmaster-General in Committee, when he said that he could give my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) the assurance that this Order was now being drafted and would soon be effective. What stage has the drafting reached, bearing in mind that that statement was made on 6th March? Are we any wiser as to when it will be effective?
May I ask the Postmaster-Geenral for an assurance that, either by Order in Council under Clause 10, or preferably by the House of Keys approving this Bill, there will be no possibility of the Isle of Man being a haven for pirate radio stations, notwithstanding the unfettered rights of the Isle of Man to continue to operate Radio Manx, which is a legal station, ashore?

Sir John Rodgers: May I have clarification on one point, because in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago he said that before an Order in Council was laid the island would be properly consulted. He added


that it could make representations. This is really a bogus phrase, because he will already have made up his mind what the Order in Council is to do. This is not my idea, nor I imagine the idea of most hon. Members, of consultation. It is surely bunkum to use this idea of consultation. What he is saying is that the Labour Government would seek to impose their will upon the people of the Isle of Man against their wishes. He ought to clarify this idea of consultation.

Mr. Edward Short: The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) asked whether this Order could be prayed against. I do not know the answer, but I do not think that it could be prayed against. I will have to find out and let him know.
The hon. Gentleman's second point raised a hypothetical question. The Bill has not yet been passed by Parliament and when it has the Government will make an Order in Council and apply it to the Isle of Man. When it does so the Isle of Man will be consulted and be able to make representations. This is common form, and was done in dozens of cases during the time of the Conservative Government.
There is no question of a "Labour Government"—the United Kingdom Government will apply the Act, passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, to the Isle of Man by Order in Council, being exactly the same procedure as has been used for many years.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 3.—(PROHIBITION OF ACTS CONNECTED WITH BROADCASTING FROM CERTAIN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT, AND FROM MARINE STRUCTURES OUTSIDE UNITED KINGDOM.)

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 31, at the end to insert:
and
(e) to the United Kingdom'.
This Amendment arises from the highly unsatisfactory answer given by the Postmaster-General during the debate on Clause 3 stand part in Committee. At that time, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) had pointed out that normally, under British law, a criminal offence could only take place in

the United Kingdom, or a British ship abroad. This new offence under the Bill by which broadcasting not in Britain, or in a British ship and not even to Britain, could become a crime under our law is something entirely new.
Once we begin thinking about this the possibilities are absolutely endless. My hon. Friend asked the Postmaster-General in Committee about the example of Peter Scott having been on expedition to the North Pole, returning home and finding himself broadcasting to Canada on a Canadian ship. He asked whether he would be committing an offence, and the Postmaster-General said that he would be breaking British law. One discovers that a British man could be broadcasting in Peru or on a Peruvian ship to Peru, and be breaking the law in England, or on a Chinese ship to China, and still breaking the law in England. We ought to stop such a thing happening, but how does one do so?
On this very question, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) asked the Postmaster-General if extradition arose. He later said that this would not be enforced. Having committed an offence all that one has to do is to go abroad for a couple of years. In other words, by banishing oneself, one can get away with the offence. We think that this is a lot of rubbish.
We ought to return to a realistic basis. The offence should be limited to a United Kingdom citizen broadcasting to Britain. The Postmaster-General said in Committee that this was absolutely impossible because pop or light music was universal and one would not be able to tell to whom it was directed. I cannot agree with that. If I heard a Beatles record coming over the radio, followed by a description of the blessings of Daz, explained in German, I would guess that this was aimed at the Germans and not directed at the United Kingdom. My local radio station is Radio 270, which is constantly advertising goods in kroner and pounds, and it does not take very long to guess at which nationality the programme is directed. Certainly, the implications in these examples are a lot clearer than many of the provisions and assumptions in the Bill, such as implying an advertisement, which is another of the crimes which comes under its umbrella.
Another reason for confining the offence to broadcasting to the United Kingdom is that throughout our discussions the Postmaster-General has too easily assumed, first, that any British seaman who joined a foreign ship would certainly know that it was a broadcasting ship, in whatever part of the world it happened to be. Secondly, he has assumed that after the Bill becomes an Act, a seaman in the most obscure part of the world will automatically know that it is against British law to broadcast from a foreign ship or to help such a broadcast to take place. A seaman is also expected to know exactly where a British subject stands if the law conflicts with the laws of the country in which he happens to be or the orders of the master of the ship.
The Postmaster-General must think about this again. The more one goes into individual cases, the more ludicrous it seems. If, for example, a British engineer joined an Indonesian ship in an Indonesian harbour, if it was one of those large vessels with a variety of masts, rigging, cranes, radio masts and the rest, he is not to know that broadcasting is its sole purpose, as, indeed, it might not be. If the offence is confined to broadcasting to Britain, or even to Europe, all these difficulties take on a much lesser degree.
We should bear in mind that the chance of seamen knowing about the law will remain remote. We here live abnormally close to these matters and we get so used to the Bill that to some of us it now does not seem particularly bizarre. To a seaman abroad, however, who listens all day to commercial radio, it is inconceivable that broadcasting a bit of pop music from a foreign ship is a crime.
We are ready to co-operate with the Postmaster-General to this degree. If he contends that limiting the offence to broadcasting to the United Kingdom is narrowing it too much, we will certainly consider confining it to broadcasting to countries which have signed the European Agreement. By bringing it far closer to one's own country, one has much more hope of making the situation realistic and just.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I come with a fresh approach to the Bill,

having been in the Pacific during most of the time when it was passing through Committee. I therefore see clearly what effect it might have on that important ocean if we, on the opposite side of the globe, assume to ourselves the most extraordinary jurisdiction which any Act of this Parliament has ever assumed.
When I left these shores, the Bill started as a Measure to deal with the sound waves that proceeded, viciously and dangerously, over these islands. By easy stages it extended itself in people's minds to the waves that extended, equally dangerously and wrongly, over the Continent of Europe and its adjacent waters.
It amazes me, on coming back and reading the Bill, to find that it extends to the waves that are sent all round the globe and from any point on the sea. That is how I read it and I do not think that I am wrong. Indeed, the Postmaster-General conceded that in Committee because, although he kept saying,
We cannot legislate for the whole world. … Obviously we cannot legislate in this Parliament for the whole globe",
he added,
But there is an international agreement on this subject—and not only the European Agreement.
In other words, the right hon. Gentleman is legislating for extra-European waters. We must have some justification for this extraordinary extension of our jurisdiction.
I see on my left my learned colleague of the Scottish Bar, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie), supporting me in that. He will, I am sure, agree that except, perhaps, in the case of murder committed by British subjects abroad and one or two cases connected with the activity of persons on board British ships, which are for these purposes regarded as part of British territory, and, possibly, except for the activities—I am not even sure whether this applies—of persons who are false coiners or forgers in foreign countries it is doubtful whether any such jurisdiction has ever before been claimed by this Parliament.
Picture the situation. A British-protected person, who is certainly included by Clause 3, somewhere in the Pacific, in the waters where I have recently been, is quite legally, according to the laws of those parts, supplying a ship which is


a broadcasting ship, which flies, perhaps, the flag of a foreign country in those parts and which broadcasts from the high seas in the Pacific, much to the comfort of those who listen to it and without any offence to any of the laws of the immediately surrounding countries.
Nevertheless, according to the wording of the Clause, such a British-protected person would be committing an offence against the law of England. As far as I can see, there is no provision in the Bill for giving him exemption. I may be wrong, but I cannot find it.
Is it not an extraordinary state of affairs that a British-protected person, engaged in broadcasting from the high seas, from the ship of a different flag from that of Britain, about which no complaint is made by the countries in the Pacific, where there is no objection to this sort of activity—because it is only the European Convention which has been materially discussed in these debates—if and when he returns to this country is liable to be prosecuted? When one considers the sort of British-protected persons who might be found in the area of the Pacific, and, indeed, all over the world, the doctrine that a man is presumed to know the law is being stretched far too far.
The Postmaster-General is taking, as those in Government service so often take, enormous powers, but he will reply that in such an instance as I have mentioned there would be no intention of using them. The worst sort of legislation is to take powers because one thinks that one may need to use them, although it is fairly certain that one will not need to do so.
Before powers of a penal character are taken, a need for their use in every particular must be made out. For such an instance as I have quoted, no argument has been given. Let the Postmaster-General have the courage of his convictions when he says
We cannot legislate for the whole world … we cannot legislate in this Parliament for the whole globe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 9th March, 1967; c. 158–9.]
In that case, let him limit the offensive broadcasts to broadcasts which go, if not only to the United Kingdom, at least only to Europe; otherwise, he is making an ass of himself and of this Parliament, because there is nothing more ridiculous

than passing laws which cannot be enforced, and a law dealing with a British-protected person broadcasting in the Pacific is one which no court in this country could ever hope to enforce.
I cannot believe that the Attorney-General has considered this point. I cannot see him or any other Law Officer on the Front Bench opposite. If the point is applied to the usual principles of legislation relating to the jurisdiction of our courts over offences committed outside this country, I am sure that, when it is appreciated, the great width of this power will be rejected. If the Postmaster-General cannot give us what we are asking for today—and this Amendment may be slightly too limited—I hope that he will at least look at it again and see if in another place he could limit the extreme width of the jurisdiction which he is taking, because it is ridiculous, foolish and futile to have penal powers over people whom one cannot ever hope to touch.

Mr. Edward Short: The hon. And learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher Cooke) said that the only international agreement which has arisen in these debates is the European Agreement. However, that is not so. Almost every country in the world is under an obligation to end pirate broadcasting from the seas round its coasts. The International Radio Regulations which are annexed to the International Telecommunications Convention make that clear. Only today I had discussions with the Postmaster-General of New Zealand, who is at the moment drafting legislation based on our own to deal with a pirate radio ship based in that country. Almost every country has an obligation to put an end to this menace.
The only issue is whether or not we add the words "to the United Kingdom". I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that Clause 3 deals solely with British subjects of one kind or another and subsection (3) specifies the various categories of British subjects. It only extends British jurisdiction to British subjects of one kind or another wherever they may be.
The effect of the Amendment is to make broadcasting on the high seas from structures on non-British registered ships and aircraft and any collaboration with


such broadcasting mentioned in Clause 5 an offence only if the broadcasting is directed to the United Kingdom. If the Amendment were accepted, the Bill would not fulfil our obligations to legislate under the European Agreement. Article I of the agreement is directed against broadcasting.
… intended for reception or capable of being received, wholly or in part within the territory of any Contracting Party."—
that is, any of the 12 countries.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That is an important limitation. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman where in the Bill that limitation is reflected, because it is clearly a limitation to Europe?

Mr. Short: Radio waves do not stop at the frontiers, but go on over other people's territory as well.
Article 1 goes on:
… or which causes harmful interference to any radio service operating under the authority of a Contracting Party.

If we are to ratify that agreement, we cannot limit the Bill in the way proposed by the Amendment. The agreement recognises that contracting parties may wish to exceed the minimum obligations, but there will be no excuse for falling short of those obligations to our partners in Europe. In any case, if the Bill is seen as part of a common legislative effort by European countries to end pirate broadcasting, it must not be limited to broadcasting directed to the United Kingdom, even if that were possible; otherwise we would be unable to help a foreign country such as Ireland if a ship manned by British nationals or financed by British advertising was broadcasting to it. That country would, like any other country similarly placed, naturally be unwilling to apply its own legislation in the converse situation.

I cannot accept the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 191.

Division No. 301.]
AYES
[7.7 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Baker, W. H. K.
Gower, Raymond
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Batsford, Brian
Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bessell, Peter
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Biffen, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Peel, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Percival, Ian


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peyton, John


Braine, Bernard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pink, R. Bonner


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hill, J. E. B.
Pym, Francis


Bryan, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Channon, H. P. G.
Jopling, Michael
Sharples, Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Sinclair, Sir George


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, John


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Crouch, David
Lambton, Viscount
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crowder, F. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Longden, Gilbert
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Loveys, W. H.
Tilney, John


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lubbock, Eric
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacArthur, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Weatherill, Bernard


Doughty, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Webster, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maginnis, John E.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maude, Angus
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Worsley, Marcus


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wylie, N. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
More, Jasper
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Eyre and Mr. Kitso




NOES


Abse, Leo
Garrett, W. E.
Ogden, Eric


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, Brian


Allen, Scholefield
Gregory, Arnold
Oram, Albert E,


Archer, Peter
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orme, Stanley


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas


Ashley, Jack
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Padley, Walter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamling, William
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Barnett, Joel
Hannan, William
Paget, R. T.


Baxter, William
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Beaney, Alan
Haseldine, Norman
Park, Trevor


Bence, Cyril
Heffer, Eric S.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Henig, Stanley
Pavitt, Laurence


Blackburn, F.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Boardman, H.
Hooley, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Booth, Albert
Horner, John
Pentland, Norman


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Hoy, James
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, L.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, Adam
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Hynd, John
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Carmichael, Neil
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rees, Merlyn


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Richard, Ivor


Coe, Denis
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)



Jones, T. A. (Rhondda West)
Rose, Paul


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Crawshaw, Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Crossman, Rt. Hn, Richard
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sheldon, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Lawson, George
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Leadbitter, Ted
Short,Rt. Hn. Edward(N c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Slater, Joseph


Delargy, Hugh
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Dell, Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Snow, Julian


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dewar, Donald
McBride, Neil
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dickens, James
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dobson, Ray
Mackintosh, John P.
Thornton, Ernest


Doig, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Dunn, James A.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T. W.


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Macpherson, Malcolm
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Eadie, Alex
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wallace, George


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Manuel, Archie
Whitaker, Ben


Ensor, David
Mapp, Charles
Whitlock, William


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Marquand, David
wilkins, W. A.


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Faulds, Andrew
Mellish, Robert
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fernyhough, E.
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Foley, Maurice
Mitchell, R. c. (S'th'pton, Test)
Woof, Robert


Ford, Ben
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Yates, Victor


Forrester, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Zilliacus, K.


Fowler, Gerry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Newens, Stan
Mr. Howie and Mr. Harper.

Clause 5.—(PROHIBITION OF ACTS RELATING TO MATTER BROADCAST FROM SHIPS, AIRCRAFT, &C.)

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 12, to leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it would be convenient to the House to discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 35, at end insert:

'provided that no advertisements shall be deemed to have been made unless the newspaper or magazine or publication has received, or agreed to receive, money or services in return for publishing the information'.
and Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 35, at end insert:
Provided that this paragraph shall only apply where payment is made for the publication of such information.

Mr. Gilmour: I agree that it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I


hope that you would agree that the Question should be put separately at the end of the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid not. The Question will be put on Amendment No. 6. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 have not been selected for a Division, but Mr. Speaker has ruled that they may be discussed with Amendment No. 6.

Mr. Gilmour: I appreciate that, and the substance of our Division may be slightly unrelated to Amendment No. 6.
The purpose of the Amendment is to restrict the criminal circle, an objective which has not appealed to the Government in our discussions on the Bill. It would take out of the ambit of the law people who write literary, dramatic or musical works for pirate radio, or who make an artistic work with such intent, and people of that sort.
The Postmaster-General said in Committee that this subsection would catch collaboration by script writers and other people with pirate broadcasts and that there was no reason why it should be left out. It is our contention that there is no reason why it should be kept in, because there is no reason why any sensible Government would want to make into criminals people who are miles away from the criminal mentality. If the Bill is to go through at all, it is reasonable that the people who run the pirate stations and the companies who finance them and the masters of the ships should be caught by the law and punished, but in our submission it is not reasonable that these minor characters, entertainment figures, should be punished according to the criminal law.
Amendment No. 8 is designed to safeguard the freedom of the Press. It arises out of what to us were some rather unexpected remarks by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee, when he said:
The Committee can be assured that under the paragraph as it stands the publication of programme details would be an offence, and also that it would be an offence whether or not such publication were requested or paid for by the broadcasters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G. 14th March, 1967, c. 210.]
In the newspaper world there has always been a fairly clear distinction between advertisements and editorial matter. The latter is put into a paper

because those who are running it think that it is worthy of inclusion and will interest their readers. Advertisements are paid for by other people. This distinction has always been fairly clear and valuable, but it is now being abridged and blurred and abolished by the right hon. Gentleman's curious definition of the word "advertisement".
Quite apart from that, of course, it is wrong that a newspaper should be prohibited from publishing news matter which is of interest and value to its readers. It is no good the Postmaster-General pretending that pirate radios are like drug traffic, or something which is wrong and vicious from start to finish, and that any mention of them would be vicious, because that is nothing like the position. It is utterly wrong to force on the Press a general conspiracy to pretend that something is not happening when it is and for the Press to be under pain of imprisonment or fine to pretend that pirate broadcasts are not going on.
There was a similar sort of agreement before the war between the newspapers and the B.B.C., under which the newspapers did not print the programmes of Radio Luxembourg or Radio Normandy, and in return the B.B.C. did not give the starting price of race horses. That was bad enough, but at least the criminal law was not brought in. It was an undercover agreement. Now the same sort of situation will be brought about by the Postmaster-General prohibiting a newspaper from carrying out its function.
The right hon. Gentleman has the most curious views about newspapers. During the Committee stage, he said:
What the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, of course, is to allow the Press in this country to defeat the will of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 14th March, 1967; c. 214.]
That really shows the right hon. Gentleman's incredible misunderstanding of the objects of the Press. The object of the Press is to give its readers a service, to tell them what is going on, and to entertain them. Its object is not to join in a conspiracy at the behest of the Government and pretend that it is not going on.
I hope that the Postmaster-General will say that his remarks in Committee were not given on proper advice, and that he regrets them, that he sees that there is a proper distinction between advertising and


editorial matter which the Bill will not seek to abridge, and that he will assure the House that he has no intention of abridging the freedom of the Press.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The object of this subsection is to make sure that the Bill is effective, and I hope that no one who has studied this matter has any doubt that a subsection of this kind is necessary.
I think that the initial reaction before the Bill was published, but after the Government had announced their intention to publish it, was that the Government would not succeed in devising a Bill which would do the job to which they had set their hands. This was a widely expressed view, but after the publication of the Bill the view was more widely taken that it would be effective, but it will not be if this Clause is seriously interfered with or damaged. Therefore, the Amendment, which seeks to leave out subsection (3), is an extremely important one, because if the subsection were to go, the Bill would be as it was thought it might be, merely a piece of paper which would not do the job at all.
I have some sympathy with the detailed views expressed by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour). He is concerned about the Press, and it is right that he should be. That is a pity that in another connection he seems to be withdrawing personally from that situation. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that he retains his philosophical feeling about the importance of the Press, and no doubt when he replies my right hon. Friend will touch on the points made by the hon. Gentleman about Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
I propose to say a few words about Amendment No. 6, which proposes to leave out subsection (3). This seems to be the Amendment about which we should say something, because, like an earlier one, it is a wrecking Amendment which, if carried, would destroy the Bill and its purpose altogether. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press the Amendment to a Division, because if they were to do so it would show that far from giving general support to the Bill and seeking to improve it, as we have understood them to be doing, they were merely seeking to destroy it.
There is one aspect of this Clause which worries me. When I saw the Bill,

I felt that it would do the job which it set out to do, but there is one activity which I fear may still be carried out, even with the Clause as it is.
There is one possibility which it seems to me could occur even if the Bill were carried in its present apparently comprehensive form. Let us consider an international company marketing a product which, on the face of it, under the provisions of this Clause, would not be allowed to advertise. Let us suppose that the product is one which is sold internationally, and that the company has a subsidiary in this country, for example, the American Gillette company. In spite of the Bill it could advertise on a pirate radio station. I do not think that it would be caught by these provisions, because it seems to me that the only way in which an advertiser can be caught is if he is located in this country.
If, when the Bill became law, my right hon. Friend were to go to the local organisation of the Gillette company and say that it was advertising on pirate radio, it would reply, "We are not doing anything of the sort. It is the parent company in the United States which is doing so. We have no control over it, and, therefore, we are not responsible". We would, therefore, be faced with the peculiar situation that the parent company in, say, America could continue advertising, while wholly British companies, for example, the Wilkinson Sword Company, would effectively be prevented from advertising its razor blades.
I apologise to my right hon. Friend if I have brought forward this idea rather late in the discussion, but I hope that he will consider whether it might be desirable for a noble Friend in another place to introduce an appropriate Amendment to the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing whether the subsection should stand part of the Clause or not. We cannot discuss other Amendments now.

Mr. Jenkins: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and conclude by saying that having made the general point I shall not proceed to the particular, which I was about to do.
I hope that when he replies to the discussion my right hon. Friend will take note of what I have said, and will find


some means of giving us an assurance on the point which I have raised.

Mr. Berry: I hope that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) will forgive me if I do not follow his general argument, but confine myself to Amendment No. 9.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-end, West (Mr. Channon) and I tabled this Amendment because of some remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee. It might be thought by people reading paragraph (f) about the publishing of advertisements relating to pirate stations that the Bill needed this paragraph, and that there was nothing in it to which one could take exception, but during the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman made some remarks—my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) referred to some of them—which I think have aroused considerable confusion and controversy, not only in the House, but among the Press and the public as a whole. That is why we have tabled the Amendment.
7.30 p.m.
The present discussion results from an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) in Standing Committee—he called it an exploratory Amendment—seeking to investigate a possible loophole. I suspect that the hon. Member got a rather different answer from that which he had expected. Let me divide the columns in newspapers into three categories—advertisement columns, editorial columns, and editorial comment columns. I know that this is an over-simplification, but it will make my point clearer. I quote the right hon. Gentleman's definition, which I think the hon. Gentleman accepted:
… publishing any advertisement or programme times and details relating to the station from which broadcasts are made as aforesaid or are to be so made.
But that Amendment would mean that these restrictions would no longer apply only to advertisement columns in newspapers and other media. Editorial columns could also be subject to scrutiny and their contents could result in prosecution. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central has already quoted one passage of the Postmaster-General's Second Reading speech and I will not

repeat it, but when the right hon. Gentleman said:
… whether or not such publication were requested or paid for by the broadcasters.
the words "or not" are fundamental to the whole problem, because the Postmaster-General is there imposing a serious restriction on the fundamental right of editors to print what they want to print in their editorial columns. One knows of the famous phrase "All the news and pictures fit to print"; that, presumably, would have to read "All the news and pictures fit to print, other than those referring to programmes relating to pirate radio stations."
The Postmaster-General said:
What it"—
that is, the Bill—
would prohibit would be publishing advertisements, including programmes for activities which Parliament is going to make illegal. It would be an intolerable situation if the newspaper were allowed to publish advertisements on behalf of somebody who was carrying out an illegal act, an act which had been forbidden by the House. That is what is being forbidden, and not normal editorial comment. Editors will be just as free to comment as they can on any other crimes at the present time.
The right hon. Gentleman was referring to editorial comment columns, and not to editorial columns, with which I am concerned.
A little later in the same speech he said:
I take it that all reputable journals would try to make a real effort to keep their advertisements separate from editorial comment.
That, again, refers to editorial comment, a point about which we do not complain.
The Postmaster-General went on to say:
We are dealing here, however, with what is clearly an advertisement, and, coming back to the major point that my hon. Friend made, it includes future programmes.
That, again, refers to advertisements but not to editorial columns. It is the way in which the right hon. Gentleman refers, on the one hand, to editorial comment columns and, on the other hand, to advertisements—which I take to mean advertisement columns—that makes me wonder whether he did not mean what he said in his references to programme details.
He then said:
I repeat that all I am interfering with is the freedom of the Press to print advertisements for illegal activities.


Again, he said:
… it would be intolerable if newspapers were allowed to publish advertisements in furtherance of activities which Parliament has decided must end.
We have tabled this Amendment because the right hon. Gentleman has confused advertisement and editorial column. We think it right that "advertisements" should be the more clearly defined by the addition of the word "paid".
In the past, pirate stations have been used, and have therefore been worthy of coverage in editorial comment in the newspapers on a number of occasions. If this Bill becomes an Act and if certain pirate stations continue broadcasting, they will become news again. I gave an example in Committee of the possibility of a pirate radio ship being chased out to sea, or it might be involved in an accident, or catch fire, or even be attacked. All such events would receive coverage in the editorial columns of newspapers, and those stories could include statements by the owners or sponsors which might give news about their intention to continue further illegal broadcasting. I do not mean that they would state, "We will broadcast again tomorrow from 8 in the morning until 8 at night," and giving details of the broadcasts. It would rather be a case of saying, "Despite what has happened, we intend to continue broadcasting, beginning at 6 o'clock tomorrow." It is wrong for the Postmaster-General to try to define news so precisely, and if he persists he will be interfering very seriously with the freedom of the Press.
When we first questioned him in Committee about his statement, he told my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central:
What the hon. Gentleman is trying to do … is to allow the Press in this country to defeat the will of Parliament … Parliament decided on Second Reading … That is the will of Parliament … [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 14th March, 1967; c. 210–14.]
With great respect, that is not the will of Parliament. This House decided to give the Bill a Second Reading, and the Measure then moved on to a further stage, but Parliament does not decide until the Bill has been through all its stages in both Houses. That is not yet the case.
I hope that the Postmaster-General will feel that we have here a serious principle

affecting the right of editors to use their editorial columns as they think fit. If, when pirate radio stations are illegal under this legislation, a pirate station were to give a handout or a "puff" through its public relations officer or by itself, I do not believe that a responsible newspaper would publish it just like that. I do not think that any reputable editor would do so, but it is essential to separate these two things.
I quote from the European Agreement from which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted throughout our discussions. Article 2 (e) refers to the illegality of
… the provision of services concerning advertising for the benefit of the stations.
Here, again, we have the essential word "advertising". I hope that the Postmaster-General will make this distinction absolutely clear, because the national Press, and the Press throughout the country, are very much confused about what he has said.

Mr. Rowland: We are discussing here three elements. The first is advertisements that are paid for, the second is general news and editorial comment about the activities of pirate stations, and the third is programme details, whether paid for or not paid for. It became clear to me in Committee that there is no dispute between either side that the Bill is intended to deal with advertising that is paid for. Equally, after some initial uncertainty which, I would admit, seemed to characterise some of my right hon. Friend's statements, it was left clear to me that the intention was not to embrace general news or editorial comment about the stations.
That leaves us to deal with programme timings and listings. It has been suggested by hon. Members opposite that the Bill should deal only with those items that are paid for, but that would leave the Bill in too weak condition. The present position is that the newspapers carry programme times and listings for the pirate stations and also for the B.B.C. and commercial television stations. None of these are paid for, but they are advertisements in the sense that they attract listeners and viewers to programmes. To leave the Bill in such a way that this kind of programme listing and details were not covered would unnecessarily weaken the Bill.
After the discussion in Committee, I withdrew my Amendment after saying:
In view of the Postmaster-General's assurance that the Clause will refer to programme times and details, whether paid for or not paid for, and in view also of his further assurance to hon. Members opposite that it is not intended to limit freedom of comment or of reporting news about these vessels if they continue to operate …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 14th March, 1967; c. 215.]
I thought that as the first assurance satisfied me and the second should satisfy hon. Members opposite, I should withdraw the Amendment. In that spirit I hope that the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Iain Gilmour) will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: The House of Commons should always be suspicious about Ministerial assurances coming from no matter whom. I am not making any imputations about the Postmaster-General, but he will have a successor. I do not believe that the House is ever right easily to part with discretion of a wide variety to Ministers. When they give assurances the House should look upon them with suspicion rather than with gratitude.
The eloquence of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) was such an effort to him that he has now taken up a relaxed position. Ministers find it easy to deal with opponents, particularly when they are backed by a large majority, but few find it easy to cope with their friends. I congratulated the right hon. Gentleman earlier on having the support of his hon. Friend the Member for Putney, but the most recent speech of the hon. Member has made me think that I was wrong and that I should have sympathised with the Postmaster-General because the hon. Member prolonged the discussion, stimulated debate and introduced irrelevant argument.
My speech on this Amendment can be kept very short. I do not like this subsection and I shall readily vote for its exclusion. I find the words in subsection (3,a) "supplying a cinematograph film" intolerably vague. Who is a supplier? What is meant by the word "supplying"? The provision should be far more precise than such a general word. It seems that anyone who has manufactured or handled

in any way a film or record can be held in some sense to be a supplier. I do not like the words,
making an artistic work with intent".
This is altogether too vague. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) pointed out, the words in paragraph (f),
publishing any advertisement",
are far too wide.
Whatever assurances may be given, these words are objectionable because "advertising" is a very broad term and has a very broad sense as well as the narrow sense in which the term is used from a commercial point of view. It is wholly wrong that Bills of this kind should have phraseology of this sort. I do not believe that there is any need to bring in the people envisaged by this subsection. I accept that the Minister, for reasons which seem to him to be good, wishes to knock out pirate radios. It does not seem that all those reasons are adequate, but I cannot see that it is necessary to introduce all these lesser fry, for people who are very indirectly concerned.
If someone is actually taking part in a broadcast that is a different matter, but it is not necessary, in order to achieve the purpose of the Postmaster-General, to include all these other people. I repeat the arguments which I used earlier, and I am sure that they will commend an echo in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, that it is very wrong indeed to proliferate the criminal law without abundant justification. We live in an age when there are all kinds of excuses for imposing controls of every conceivable kind on a mass of citizens. It is time that the House of Commons woke up to this fact and developed a much stronger distaste for this practice.
The right hon. Gentleman would in no sense lose prestige or face if he had second thoughts on these points. I should need a lot of convincing that this sort of subsection is in any way necessary for the preservation of the general sense of the Bill. I felt that before, but when the hon. Member for Putney expressed himself in the other sense I felt more than ever convinced that I was right.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am concerned about this Clause for two reasons. I think


that the Postmaster-General is grossly under-estimating the ingenuity of the Press. I understand that it will be entirely legal for a newspaper to comment on programmes which have been put out by a pirate operator illegally so long as those comments refer to a broadcast which has already been heard. According to the Postmaster-General, nothing then will be done.
In practice, this means providing the potential listener with an advertisement or notice of what programmes are available to listen to if newspapers can provide, as they will, regular notices about those programmes as they emerge. Having had some experience of the Press as an editor and a journalist, I say that if the right hon. Gentleman thinks it will be possible to defeat the ingenuity of journalists by this kind of thing he is in for a surprise. It will not work.
Not only is the criminal law being expanded to take in the activities of the pirates, but we are asked to vote that people should be punished and sent to gaol for new activities which are on the far horizon and have not yet happened, but which the Postmaster-General thinks conceivably might happen. The offence is the supplying of a cinematograph film and then we hear about television broadcasts. Can the Postmaster-General tell us what evidence he has that any pirate television or pirate cinematography is being purveyed at present? There is obviously no evidence of that whatever, but the right hon. Gentleman thinks there might be in future. He is, therefore, asking the House to give him powers, not to deal with something which is happening, but against the possibility of what might happen.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: A company was formed in the United States of America for the purpose of coming into the Thames Estuary to broadcast television programmes, but since this Bill was introduced I understand that that company has been disbanded.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Member may have interesting information of that kind, but Parliament is seeking to deal with activities which we know about, which we can hear and see. That is a very different matter from seeking powers to deal with a possibility on the far horizon of which we have no detailed knowledge

whatever. Are we to assume that the whole argument of the Government is that our international partners have complained that this may arise in the case of television broadcasts? We have no evidence.
We are told that pirate broadcasts interfere with other stations. Are we to suppose that pirate television would necessarily do so? It might, but we do not know. We are told that pirate radio stations make things difficult for the Postmaster-General to proceed with his B.B.C. alternative. Are we to suppose that this would happen in the case of pirate television? It might, but we do not know.
It is objectionable in principle that the House should be asked to give prospective powers for use as, when and if the Postmaster-General says that he may need them, without his having had to show the House that the television or cinematography he is worried about is offensive. These are powers taken unnecessarily in advance, for reasons which have not been shown. They are highly objectionable on that account.

Mr. Edward Short: I want to say a few words about each of the Amendments, although Nos. 8 and 9 really deal with the same point.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said that he would exclude all the categories in subsection (3). This is what it is sought to achieve by Amendment No. 6. The proposal is tantamount to deleting Clause 5, because if subsection (3) is taken out there is nothing left.
The main effect of tackling the pirate broadcasting problem by the method provided by the European Agreement is that the use of "gunboat" tactics—strong arm tactics—is avoided. Action against the outlaws who are abusing this freedom of the seas is to be achieved under this Agreement without the use of force on the high seas. I am sure that this is a solution which must commend itself to all peace-loving people.
The essence of the Council of Europe method is that acts of collaboration of any kind with the outlaws are to be penalised. In the Bill those acts of collaboration, whose general nature is set out in the European Agreement, are divided into two groups. Broadly, first,


there are those who provide goods for the use of the pirates. These are dealt with in Clause 4. Secondly, there are those who provide services essential for the pirates' programmes, and these are dealt with in Clause 5.
To omit Clause 5 would mean that the pirates could continue to receive advertising revenues, the gramophone records and the tapes by which they attract an audience. To do this would make the legislation virtually ineffective, and that would be absurd.
The hon. Member for Yeovil also asked about the word "supplying". I agree that it is a fairly wide word. The only definition I can give is that it is any form of putting in possession, so long as there is the intent to supply.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) queried whether there would ever be pirate television broadcasts. There has been one in Holland. The European Convention uses the word "broadcasting", which includes both television and sound broadcasting.
I want to say a few words about Amendment No. 8—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I said that it was necessary to show, if there were television broadcasts, that they were offensive, that they were objectionable, on the arguments the Government have advanced. That is what I wanted to hear.

Mr. Short: There is no doubt whatever that they would be objectionable from the point of view of copyright, from the point of view of the possible potential hazard to shipping, and also probably from the point of view of interference with other peoples' listening. It is certain that they would be objectionable. This was the view the Council of Europe took. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here when I said earlier that the Conservative Government, especially the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), played a considerable part in the drawing up of the Council of Europe Agreement. We are following the Agreement almost to the letter.
There was some discussion in Committee on whether an advertisement is necessarily something which is paid for. I made it quite clear that it is not necessarily something which is paid for. Any

insertion in the Press which is intended to benefit a pirate radio station is an advertisement, whether it is paid for or not. It would be quite wrong to exempt advertisements which are not, or which cannot be shown to be, paid for. The obligation under the European Agreement is to penalise
the provision of services concerning advertising for the benefit of the stations".
The words
for the benefit of the stations
were not read when this provision was quoted earlier.
The intention of subsection (3,f) is that publication of information about future pirate broadcasts shall be prohibited. It makes no difference in principle whether the publication of such information is paid for or done gratuitously. In either case, the information serves as an advertisement for the station and is obviously put in to benefit the station.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: How far does the argument about benefit go? Would it embrace, for example, a commentary or criticism on a programme which is past, in the way that T.V. and broadcasting commentators freely comment in the Press? Or is it limited merely to announcements about the future? Both might considerably benefit a station by giving it publicity.

Mr. Short: This is a matter, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, which the courts would have to interpret.
Moreover, the Amendment would open the way to widespread evasion and corruption. In particular, it would create a situation in which it would be entirely permissible for the pirate broadcasters themselves to publish printed advertisements about their future programmes.
In Committee, the Opposition saw in a paragraph relating to advertisements an attempt to interfere with the freedom of the Press to print news and comment. I said this in Committee:
… it certainly would not catch the editorial comment. The editors would be free to comment just as they can now on crime. What it would prohibit would be publishing advertisements, including programmes, for activities which Parliament is"—
I hope—
going to make illegal. … Editors will be just as free to comment as they can on any other crimes"—


prohibited by Parliament—
at the present time.
In Committee the Opposition sought to show that not all pirate broadcasting, all over the world, would be illegal under the Bill. The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) sought to categorise newspaper contents as consisting of
advertisements which are paid for, … comments, and … news."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 14th March, 1967; c. 211–13.]
This is not comprehensive. As I have pointed out over and over again, an advertisement need not be paid for. It would be quite wrong to confine the effect of the paragraph to advertisements which are paid for. Indeed, that might amount to an invitation to corruption, since there are many ways in which recompense can be made for "services rendered" without honest payment.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Surely that point is met by Amendment No. 8, which includes services. We have not restricted advertisements to those for which payment is received. We have also put in services.

Mr. Short: The hon. Member is quite right.
Moreover, information about future broadcasts might often be published by newspapers without any charge to the broadcasters. It is the deliberate intention to prevent this, because such publicity would be helpful to those engaged in illegal broadcasting.
The Bill has been carefully drafted, particularly in the tenses used, so as to catch only things which serve as advertisements. References to past broadcasts would not be caught. References to future broadcasts would be caught. That is the intention, and that is the effect of the wording used.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) raised the question of an international company with a British subsidiary, the case where the international company was advertising through a broadcasting station here. I want to make it quite clear that anybody in this country giving assistance to pirate stations

would be liable under the Bill. Indeed, under the general law, anybody in the United Kingdom, when the Bill becomes law, who aids, abets, counsels or procures someone to commit the offence of advertising by means of a broadcast received in this country will be liable to be prosecuted, tried and punished in the same manner as the principal offender, even though the person advertising might have been outside the United Kingdom at all the material times.

I should have thought that that made it quite clear that anybody in a subsidiary company, where there had been any kind of collusion between the subsidiary and the parent company, would be liable under the Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: That was a grossly inadequate reply. The Postmaster-General went on repeating his totally perverse definition of an advertisement. The only proper distinction between an advertisement and a non-advertisement is that an advertisement is paid for. Once he goes down the slope of saying that it is something intended to benefit somebody, then almost anything can be an advertisement.
Certainly, the White Paper on the "Torrey Canyon" is an advertisement. Most White Papers put a propaganda gloss on certain matters, but they are not advertisements because they are not paid for. At least, they are not normally thought to be advertisements. It is no good glossing over the fundamental distinction which exists in the Press. The right hon. Gentleman's point about corruption was also bad, because it is met by Amendment No. 8.
It is very much to our regret that the right hon. Gentleman insists upon infringing the freedom of the Press in this way. Our primary objection to subsection (3) is embodied in Amendments No. 8 and No. 9, but we are not allowed to divide on those; and as we feel most strongly that the whole subsection is much too wide we invite hon. Members to divide the House upon this Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 114.

Division No. 302.]
AYES
[8.3 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Archer, Peter
Atkins Ronald (Preston, N.)


Allaun Frank (Salford, E.)
Armstrong, Ernest
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)


Allen, Scholefield
Ashley, Jack
Bagier, Gordon A. T.




Barnett, Joel
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orme, Stanley


Baxter, William
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas


Beaney, Alan
Hate, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Padley, Walter


Blackburn, F.
Hamling, William
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Boardman, H.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Booth, Albert
Haseldine, Norman
Park, Trevor


Boyden, James
Henig, Stanley
Pavitt, Laurence


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bradley, Tom
Hooley, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howie, W.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hoy, James
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Cant, R. B.
Huckfield, L.
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Price, William (Rugby)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hynd, John
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rees, Merlyn


Coe, Denis
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Richard, Ivor


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, T. A. (Rhondda, W.)
Rose, Paul


Dalyell, Tam
Kenyon, Clifford
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Delargy, Hugh
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Slater, Joseph


Dewar, Donald
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Dickens, James
Mackie, John
Snow, Julian


Dobson, Ray
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dunn, James A.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thornton, Ernest


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Eadie, Alex
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Watkins, David (Consett)


English, Michael
Manuel, Archie
Whitaker, Ben


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mapp, Charles
Whitlock, William


Ensor, David
Marquand, David
Wilkins, W. A.


Faulds, Andrew
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Foley, Maurice
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Ford, Ben
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Forrester, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Woof, Robert


Fowler, Gerry
Newens, Stan
Yates, Victor


Galpern, Sir Myer
Ogden, Eric
Zilliacus, K.


Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, Brian



Gregory, Arnold
Oram, Albert E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Ioan L. Evans and Mr. Harper.




NOES


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Iremonger, T. L.


Awdry, Daniel
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Baker, W. H. K.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Batsford, Brian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jopling, Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Doughty, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bessell, Peter
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kimball, Marcus


Biffen, John
Emery, Peter
Lambton, Viscount


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Errington, Sir Eric
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Braine, Bernard
Eyre, Reginald
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gibson-Watt, David
Longden, Gilbert


Bryan, Paul
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Loveys, W. H.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lubbock, Eric


Burden, F. A.
Glover, Sir Douglas
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Carlisle, Mark
Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McMaster, Stanley


Channon, H. P. G.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maddan, Martin


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
Maginnis, John E.


Clegg, Walter
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Maude, Angus


Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Crouch, David
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monro, Hector


Dalkeith, Earl of
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
More, Jasper


Dance, James
Higgnis, Terence L.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh







Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Ridsdale, Julian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Royle, Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Weatherill, Bernard


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Sinclair, Sir George
Webster, David


Peel, John
Smith, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Percival, Ian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Peyton, John
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Worsley, Marcus


Pounder, Rafton
Temple, John M.
Wright, Esmond


Pym, Francis
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wylie, N. R.


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy



Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tilney, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
van straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Grant and Mr. Kitson.

Clause 6.—(PENALTIES AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.)

Mr. Bryan: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 9, to leave out "three months" and to insert "one month".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 12, to leave out "two years" and to insert "three months".

Mr. Bryan: In view of the Assistant Postmaster-General's speech in Committee on the subject of penalties, we expect no great success with our Amendment tonight. Nevertheless, I move it, first, to give the Postmaster-General, who, unfortunately, could not be in the Committee that day, an opportunity to tell us his views on the highly important subject of penalties, and, second, to register once again our opposition in principle to the severity of penalty in relation to some, if not all, of the offences under the Bill.
The courts have a wide discretion on penalties in British law. The smallest offence will not necessarily attract the heaviest penalty. Nevertheless, the range of offences under the Bill is so wide that for the lesser offences separate and lesser penalties should be specified. The better way to produce the same effect would have been to abolish the lesser offences. For example, we tried to give the Postmaster-General a chance to bring a little humanity into the Bill by absolving from liability the fan who writes a postcard to a disc jockey.
The right hon. Gentleman has constantly told us that he is confident that the physical restraints of the Bill will put the pirates out of action. If so, why must he turn the knife in the wound to those listeners already losing their programmes and say to them, "Do not write a postcard to a disc jockey or you will be liable to three years' imprisonment or a fine of £400"?
In Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) put this sort of proposition forward, the Postmaster-General dismissed it far too lightly, saying that he could not be drawn into a discussion of individual cases. But it is by examples of individual cases that we most effectively debate in Committee. We are interested in individual cases and how the Bill affects individuals in their particular circumstances. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said, we are not interested in sweeping assurances of fair play if justice can be assured by more specific provisions in the Bill.
As legislators, we all agree that the effectiveness of our laws depends on the extent to which they seem reasonable. The difficulty on the Bill so far is that the Postmaster-General has not recognised that the Government's inaction over the years has taught people to regard the pirates as a familiar part of daily life. To the vast mass of the non-HANSARD reading public the idea that broadcasters or listeners are committing a crime worthy of heavy penalty simply does not occur. The background of the Bill makes it doubly important that we try to present it to the public unencumbered by Clauses and penalties which in many cases appear to the public as almost a joke. The absurd size of the penalties in relation to some of the crimes can bring the law into disrepute.
The Postmaster-General could have improved the Bill either by reducing the number of offences it creates by some tens of thousands or by being more specific in making the punishment fit the crime. He has chosen not to do either, and we must voice our protest in the only way open to us.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Amendment is perfectly fair and reasonable and the Government should reconsider this matter. Let them have regard to the


so-called crimes covered by these penalties to the extent of two or three years' imprisonment. Reverting for a moment to the subject of Amendment No. 6, with which we have just dealt, let them remember that it would be possible, if a pirate station were to broadcast the fact that the Postmaster-General, the Assistant Postmaster-General, or even the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), was to open a Labour Party garden fete next Saturday, the onus would be on them to prove that they did not initiate the advertisement, and, if they were not able to establish this to the court's satisfaction, they could be liable to two years' imprisonment. This is the ludicrous situation which we have reached.
The great majority of offences under the Bill are minor offences involving secondary persons, and it is quite beyond the scope of the so-called crimes created under the Bill to go this far. Whether the Bill can be effective or not, with or without international action, penalties of two years' imprisonment will not influence the outcome at all. The Government are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and their proposals are quite unnecessary.

Mr. Edward Short: The hon. Members for Howden (Mr. Bryan) and for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) have argued that the penalties we propose are unduly severe in relation to the nature of the crimes. What both hon. Gentlemen have overlooked is that the penalities which they seek to reduce are maxima. For example, the maximum penalty under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 is £100 or three months' imprisonment, but in the 13 years of that Act's operation the sentence of imprisonment has never been awarded and the maximum fine of £100 has been reached, I think, only once. The average fine for transmitting offences—I have had it worked out—has been about £8, although the maximum is £100, and no penalty of imprisonment has ever been imposed.
The penalty appropriate to a particular case is decided by the court which tries the case. Parliament is responsible only for setting the upper limit. It follows, therefore, that the maximum specified in any Measure should be the penalty which

Parliament would consider appropriate for the worst kind of offence which could possibly arise. That is the duty of Parliament in matters of this kind.

Here is an example, admittedly an extreme one. If it were shown that the stranding of a ship had been caused by interference from a pirate station and if, in spite of that, the pirate station went on transmitting and by so doing caused the loss of another ship and the lives of people on board, in that event it would be absurd to say that three months' imprisonment was too heavy a penalty for the offenders.

That is an extreme example, but, as Parliament is considering maximum penalties rather than average penalties, it is far more logical to consider that sort of eventuality rather than the average case or eventualities of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member for Cathcart. Against that background and against the more prosaic background of such statutes as the Wireless Telegraphy Act and the Road Traffic Acts, the maximum penalties set out in the Bill are seen not to be unreasonable. Indeed, when the Bill was being drafted I was in two minds whether to increase the term of imprisonment on conviction on indictment. It was a marginal consideration whether the term was too short, but we decided to leave it as it was.

The hon. Member for Howden repeated a bit of nonsense which he and his hon. Friends have been talking throughout, saying that we are turning the knife in the wound of people listening to their stations. The object of the Bill is to protect the listeners in this country. Clearly, as I said before, if we did nothing about this and said that we were doing nothing, or if we legalised them, there would quickly be 50, 60 or 100 pirate stations around our shores, and listening would be impossible in this country and in Europe. What we are doing by the Bill is not to take something away from people but to safeguard their broadcasting in the future. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the Amendment.

Question put, That "three months" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 105.

Division NO. 303]
AYES
[8.20p.m.


Abse, Leo
Anderson, Donald
Ashley, Jack


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Archer, Peter
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)


Allen, Scholefield
Armstrong, Ernest
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)




Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, Brian


Barnes, Michael
Gregory, Arnold
Oram, Albert E.


Barnett, Joel
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orme, Stanley


Baxter, William
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas


Beaney, Alan
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bence, Cyril
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Padley, Walter


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bessell, Peter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Blackburn, F.
Hamling, William
Park, Trevor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurence


Boardman, H.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Booth, Albert
Haseldine, Norman
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boyden, James
Hattersley, Roy
Pentland, Norman


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Henig, Stanley
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howie, W.
Rees, Merlyn


Cant, R. B.
Hoy, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, L.
Richard, Ivor


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hynd, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Coe, Denis
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rose, Paul


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Sheldon, Robert


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, T. A. (Rhondda West)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kelley, Richard
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)



Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Slater, Joseph


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Small, William


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Leadbitter, Ted
Snow, Julian


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Delargy, Hugh
Lomas, Kenneth
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dell, Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dempsey, James
Lubbock, Eric
Thornton, Ernest


Dewar, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dickens, James
McBride, Neil
Urwin, T. W.


Dobson, Ray
Mackie, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Doig, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunn, James A.
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunnett, Jack
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.)
Whitaker, Ben


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Macpherson, Malcolm
Whitlock, William


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Eadie, Alex
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mapp, Charles
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


English, Michael
Marquand, David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Ensor, David
Maxwell, Robert
Winterbottom, R. E.


Faulds, Andrew
Mendelson, J. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Yates, Victor


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Zilliacus, K.


Foley, Maurice
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Ford, Ben
Morris, John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fowler, Gerry
Newens, Stan
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Galpern, Sir Myer
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Charles R. Morris.




NOES


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Higgins, Terence L.


Awdry, Daniel
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hill, J. E. B.


Baker, W. H. K.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Iremonger, T. L.


Batsford, Brian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)


Beamish, Cot. Sir Tufton
Doughty, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Film)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jopling, Michael


Biffen, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Emery, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Braine, Bernard
Errington, Sir Eric
Kim ball, Marcus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Timothy


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lambton, Viscount


Bryan, Paul
Gibson-Watt, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Carlisle, Mark
Clover, Sir Douglas
Longden, Gilbert


Channon, H. P. C.
Gower, Raymond
Loveys, W. H.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Clegg, Walter
Gurden, Harold
MacArthur, Ian


Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McMaster, Stanley


Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maddan, Martin


Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maginnis, John E.


Dance, James
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Maude, Angus







Mawby, Ray
Pounder, Rafton
Tilney, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Pym, Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


More, Jasper
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Royle, Anthony
Webster, David


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Russell, Sir Ronald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Sharples, Richard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sinclair, Sir George
Worsley, Marcus


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Smith, John
Wright, Esmond


Peel, John
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wylie, N. R.


Percival, Ian
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)



Peyton, John
Temple, John M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pink, R. Bonner
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Grant and Mr. Monro.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 10, to leave out '£100' and to insert '£400'.
When the Bill was drafted the maximum penalty was £100 on summary conviction, and was fixed largely by analogy with the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, which prescribes a maximum penalty of £100 for unlicensed transmitting. It was realised, of course, that in certain cases arising under the Bill heavier penalties might be necessary. It was considered that such cases would be dealt with on indictment.
The matter of penalties has since been carefully reviewed, and it has been decided that an increase is necessary in the maximum penalty for offences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. The Wireless Telegraphy Bill, which has now been introduced, and will come up for Second Reading shortly, accordingly provides for the maximum penalty on summary conviction for unlicensed transmitting to be increased from £100 to £400. In these circumstances, it would be unnecessarily wasteful if all cases under this Bill in which the maximum penalty of £100 seemed inadequate had to be brought on indictment.

Indictment would, indeed, be inappropriate in the great majority of cases. With only £100 to go to magistrates would find themselves in much the same difficulties as they have been in recently under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, in relation to pirate broadcasting stations which are in territorial waters. One hundred pounds is nothing more than petty cash to the successful pirate broadcaster. We have already had an example of a pirate broadcasting station being fined the maximum of £100 and subsequently being convicted and fined heavily and repeating the offence.

It is for that reason that I move to leave out '£100' and to insert '£400'.

Mr. Bryan: We explained on the last Amendment why, on principle, we object to the penalties prescribed in the Bill. We certainly object to any increase in the penalties. In our view, the Postmaster-General has said nothing in his short speech to justify this increase. We shall, therefore, divide against it.

Question put, That '£100' stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 182.

Division No. 304.]
AYES
[8.35 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hill, J. E. B.


Awdry, Daniel
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Iremonger, T. L.


Baker, W. H. K.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Batsford, Brian
Doughty, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Jopling, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Emery, Peter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Biffen, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Eyre, Reginald
Kimball, Marcus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kitson, Timothy


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gibson-Watt, David
Lambton, Viscount


Bryan, Paul
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Burden, F. A.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Carlisle, Mark
Gower, Raymond
Longden, Gilbert


Channon, H. P. G.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Loveys, W. H.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
MacArthur, Ian


Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McMaster, Stanley


Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maddan, Martin


Dance, James
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Maginnis, John E.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Higgins, Terence L.
Maude, Angus




Mawby, Ray
Pym, Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maxwett-Hyslop, R. J.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


More, Jasper
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Royle, Anthony
Webster, David


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Russell, Sir Ronald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Sharples, Richard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sinclair, Sir George
Worsley, Marcus


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Smith, John
Wright, Esmond


Peel, John
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wylie, N. R.


Percival, Ian
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)



Peyton, John
Temple, John M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pink, R. Bonner
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Grant and Mr. Monro.


Pounder, Rafton
Tilney, John





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ford, Ben
Newens, Stan


Allen, Scholefield
Forrester, John
Ogden, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Fowler, Gerry
O'Malley, Brian


Archer, Peter
Galpern, Sir Myer
Oram, Albert E.


Armstrong, Ernest
Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Stanley


Ashley, Jack
Gregory, Arnold
Oswald, Thomas


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Padley, Walter


Barnes, Michael
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Barnett, Joel
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Baxter, William
Hamling, William
Park, Trevor


Beaney, Atan
Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurence


Bence, Cyril
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Haseldine, Norman
Pentland, Norman


Bessell, Peter
Hattersley, Roy
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S,)


Blackburn, F.
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Henig, Stanley
Price, William (Rugby)


Boardman, H.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Booth, Albert
Hooley, Frank
Rees, Merlyn


Boyden, James
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howie, W.
Richard, Ivor


Bradley, Tom
Hoy, James
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, L.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, John
Rose, Paul


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sheldon, Robert


Coe, Denis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. A. (Rhondda, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Slater, Joseph


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Snow, Julian


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lubbock, Eric
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McBride, Neil
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Delargy, Hugh
Mackie, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dell, Edmund
Mackintosh, John P.
Whitaker, Ben


Dempsey, James
Maclennan, Robert
Whitlock, William


Dewar, Donald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Dickens, James
MacPherson, Malcolm
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Dobson, Ray
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Doig, Peter
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Dunnett, Jack
Manuel, Archie
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mapp, Charles
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Marquand, David
Winterbottom, R. E.


Eadie, Alex
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Edwards, Robert (Bitston)
Maxwell, Robert
Woof, Robert


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mendelson, J. J.
Yates, Victor


English, Michael
Millan, Bruce
Zilliacus, K.


Ensor, David
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)



Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Fitch and Mr. Harold Walker.


Fernyhough, E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Question, That '£400' be there inserted in the Bill, Put and agreed to.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 21, to leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment we can also discuss Amendment No. 23, in line 23, at end insert:
'but no offence committed in Scotland or in the waters adjacent thereto shall be referred to a court outside Scotland without the prior agreement of the Lord Advocate of Scotland'.

Mr. Wylie: The Amendment strikes out the provisions contained in subsection (3) of Clause 6, reading that proceedings for an offence under this Act may be taken in any place in the United Kingdom.
If this Bill were wholly concerned with offences created or committed outwith the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts, there would be something to be said for the subsection. I accept the argument that offences committed on the high seas are in a special category, and that it is difficult to ascertain which court ought to hear them at times. On that analogy the reference made by the Assistant Postmaster-General in Committee to the Continental Shelf Act was a valid one. That is where the analogy stops. The Continental Shelf Act, 1964, set up an entirely new jurisdiction for the English and Scottish courts by creating offences which could be committed in designated areas outwith this country and its territorial waters.
A great deal of this Bill is not concerned simply with offences committed outwith the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts. The whole of Clause 1 deals with offences committed within the United Kingdom or its territorial waters. Clause 2 deals with offences committed in territorial waters, and part of Clause 4 deals with offences committed in the United Kingdom, together with half of Clause 5, and so forth.
That means that as this subsection stands, if an offence is committed in Scotland under the Act, as it will become, and I am not even talking about territorial waters, then there is nothing to prevent that offence being tried in an English court. I cannot understand the reason or justification for it, but I can visualise certain circumstances when this could result in very serious injustice to people resident in Scotland.
One has to bear in mind that the law of evidence in Scotland relating to criminal law is entirely different from the law of evidence, as I understand it, in England. What might readily fail as a prosecution in Scotland could very readily succeed if the case, in someone's discretion—and we are not told in whose hands the discretion will lie—is heard in England.
From my own experience I know the resentment felt by many Scottish people in a somewhat analagous situation in trial by court-martial. Trial by court-martial, whether the offence is committed in Scotland or not, is governed by the rules of English law. I know many examples of convictions having been obtained in courts martial in Scotland which could not have been obtained if the Scottish criminal law had been applied.
8.45 p.m.
Before we start infringing the basic right of a Scottish person to exclude the jurisdiction of his own courts, a very strong case must be made out and judging from what was said during the proceedings in Committee, which I have read, that case has not been made out. If one tests it by the provisions of Clause 5(2)—
A person who
in Scotland, shall we say
procures another person to do …
something which constitutes an offence under the Bill—there is nothing which prevents the offence from being tried in England. I know that the Postmaster-General will say that in a situation like that nobody would dream of taking the proceedings in England. That may or may not be. But it seems to me wrong in principle that we should without some protest agree to a provision of this nature which has been lifted almost word for word out of the Continental Shelf Act and put in this Bill which deals with entirely different and very much wider circumstances.
I hope that the Postmaster-General will think about this matter. I do not suggest that either of the two Amendments is the right solution. It may well be that in dealing with offences committed on the high seas, a provision of this nature is not necessary. I accept that. But most of the Bill is concerned with offences not committed on the high seas and it is readily ascertained from the Bill in which jurisdiction those offences are committed.
This is not a provision which the House should allow to pass. Some restriction should be made on the very wide nature of subsection (3)

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie) for calling attention to a very serious weakness in the Clause. From his wide and learned experience of the courts in Scotland, he has reminded us, in the absence of any Scottish Minister, of the depth of feeling which there is in Scotland about the growing tendency to overlook and override the traditionally long established powers of the Scottish courts.
I am very concerned that if we allow this subsection to pass as it is, we shall be creating a situation which in Scotland could have particularly serious legal consequences. The Government, by their actions, are already watering down some of the established authority of the Scottish courts. We were reminded during the debate in Committee on the Water Bill the other day that there were occasions when the legal position in Scotland might well have to be determined by rulings of English courts. We know that next week the Government propose to abolish a long standing custom whereby the Lord President of the Court of Session acts as arbiter in education disputes. That is to be scrapped by the Government. Recently, we saw how an English Q.C. was brought in by the Secretary of State to deal with a Scottish inquiry.
If I were to go on listing these offences against the legal system in Scotland, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might well call me to order, I would therefore simply wish to remind the House that if we allow this subsection to stand as it is, we shall be creating a situation in which a non-maritime offence, although committed in Scotland, could be heard in an English court. Apart from the fact that that would be a slap in the face for the Scottish legal system, it is also a complete denial of certain provisions in the Act of Union of 1707. I do not say this lightly. I have looked at Article XIX of the Act of Union and I will refer to it in detail presently.
If one studies the Act of Union, which holds a particular place of esteem in

Scottish national life, ones sees that it is clear that the intention of the two Parliaments at that time was to protect intact the Scottish legal system and to preserve the right of citizens in Scotland to have alleged offences dealt with in the the courts of Scotland. Indeed, the Article makes it clear that the privilege, as it were, of the Scottish courts should be carefully preserved for the future.
Article XIX states:
The Court of Session, or College of Justice, do after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in all Time coming within Scotland, as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom, and with the same Authority and Privileges as before the Union, subject nevertheless to such Regulations for the better Administration of Justice, as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain".
I read those last words deliberately, because clearly Parliament in its wisdom at that time thought it right to provide a loophole for particular changes in the administration of justice which might be required for the better conduct of justice in the years to come. The Minister could, I suppose, argue that subsection (3) of the Clause falls within that definition. If he were to claim that, however, he would be denying the spirit of the Act.
The more one reads the Act of Union, particularly Article XIX, one sees the determination of the two Parliaments at that time to protect the rights of the Scottish citizen to be heard before a Scottish court. Indeed, a situation could arise under the Bill in which there could be a conflict between the English and Scottish courts.

Mr. Edward Short: Mr. Edward Short indicated dissent.

Mr. MacArthur: The Postmaster-General shakes his head, but in these matters I prefer to be guided by the legal knowledge of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pentlands, who has a better knowledge of the Scottish courts than any other hon. Member.
It is conceivable—I do not put it any higher; no doubt my hon. and learned Friend will correct me if my interpretation is wrong—that under subsection (3) an offence could first be heard in a Scottish court and an appeal could, I suppose, be heard in a English court.

Mr. Wylie: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong. The basic question is whether the trial in the first instance of an


offence committed in Scotland should take place in other than a Scottish court. That is the issue.

Mr. MacArthur: I accept the point made by my hon. and learned Friend. Nevertheless, it is conceivable, since there is no distinction in the Bill between Scottish and English courts, for a continued hearing to take place in a different place. At one stage the hearing could be in a Scottish court, and an appeal hearing could take place in an English court. I agree that that is unlikely, but it seems to me to be a possible consequence of the subsection. If that were the result, we would be paving the way at a later stage for Article XIX to be completely breached. There, the inviolability of the Scottish courts is clearly protected.
In referring to the courts of England, the Act of Union states that the "said courts"—that is, the variety of courts previously listed, all of them English courts—
'or any other of the like Nature, after the Union, shall have no Power to cognosce, review, or alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland",
and then various other qualifications follow.
It is clear that the authority of the Scottish courts was intended to be protected by Article XIX and that the findings of the Scottish courts were clearly protected in perpetuity by Article XIX. Therefore, we should be particularly careful not to allow through a subsection which in the first place is contrary to the spirit of Article XIX and in the second place could produce a situation in which a case arising in one country could go to appeal in another country. This would be entirely contrary to the later provisions of that Article.
However, I do not want to get too involved in the details of the Act of Union, although it is right that the House should recall what took place in the two Parliaments at that time and honour the pledges given by our predecessors.
The main effect of this subsection is that it introduces a legal situation which I believe is completely untenable and illustrates yet again the growing tendency of the Government to deny by Act of Parliament and by statements in the House and in Committee the ancient traditional rights of the Scottish courts.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: After the very penetrating remarks of my hon. Friend, there is not a great deal left to say. On the other hand, there are one or two points which must be made.
When I raised this matter in Committee, the Assistant Postmaster-General, with his usual courtesy, offered to look at the matter again. Thereafter, he sent me a letter saying that he regarded the matter as generally hypothetical and that he did not think that it could arise.
The hon. Gentleman went into some detail, but there are one or two points which have not been cleared up. The first is the difference between the two systems. It is not a parochial question of saying that we want everything to happen in Edinburgh and nothing to happen in London. There is a large basic difference. There is a difference in the law of evidence. In one country one needs corroboration. In the other, one does not. The verdicts are different. In Scotland, we can have a majority vote. In England, it is not possible, although it may be in the future. In Scotland, we can have a not proven verdict, which does not exist in England.
It is clear that unless we have an Amendment along the lines suggested a transfer could take place from one country to the other which could have a determining influence on the outcome of any case.
In his letter, the Assistant Postmaster-General pointed out that cases would not be transferred, and in column 256 of the proceedings in Committee he made the same point. However, surely the whole point of the subsection is that it assumes that a crime committed somewhere can be assumed to be committed somewhere else. It is not a question of transferring jurisdiction from one place to another, but simply the fact that if a crime takes place in Brighton it can be assumed to take place in Bellahouston. That is what the subsection says. It is an unusual one and one which I have not seen the like of before in the law of this country.
It is not a question of transferring jurisdiction, but one of the Government, the prosecution or anyone being able to assume for their own purposes where the offence took place. Under the Bill as we have it now, it is almost certain that some offences could readily bring


conviction in English courts under their procedure and not bring prosecution in Scotland. With the wide range of variation in evidence, in corroboration and the rest of it, there could be a substantial difference. In these circumstances, the matter should be looked at again carefully.
It should be stressed that this point has come up in previous legislation which has been before the House even this year, and very special measures have been taken to safeguard it. In the Iron and Steel Bill, for example, we came up against exactly the same point. Special provision was made for a tribunal to consider whether proceedings should be Scottish or English. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at page 87 of the Iron and Steel Act he would see there a full description of precisely how it is designed to cope with Scottish and English proceedings. Some provision of this sort must be made, otherwise we would make the law a nonsense.
9.0 p.m.
These are only a few of the items which cause alarm. Although we always had courtesy and consideration from the right hon. Gentleman and the Assistant Postmaster-General in Committee, when this matter is raised and so many Scottish Members express an interest, surely the Government could have produced a Scottish Minister? We understand why they cannot produce a Law Officer. We always have the conscientious attendance of the hon. Members for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) and Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen), but a Scottish Minister should have been present to deal with this important point.
It is not enough to brush this matter aside. The Government are saying that a crime committed somewhere can be assumed to be committed somewhere else and that, therefore, they can pick their court for a particular crime. We all know the stories of hanging judges and something similar could arise in this case. This is not parochial nonsense, but a serious point. Despite the reply which the right hon. Gentleman might have prepared, I hope that he will look at the matter again before it goes to another place, where

there are many peers who know more about Scottish law than many hon. Members present here.

Mr. Edward Short: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) that this is an extremely intricate point. He asked whether we would look at it. We have done so. The point was raised in discussing an Amendment in Committee, which was withdrawn on my hon. Friend's assurance that further consideration would be given to the points raised. I will look again at this point, although I cannot accept the Amendment at this stage.
The hon. and learned Member said that most offences under the Bill would be in the United Kingdom or external waters. This is not the case. A difficult problem arises with offences on the high seas. We found that this point did not arise, as my hon. Friend said in his letter to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). By Clause 6(5), private prosecutions and even prosecutions by Ministers are excluded. Cases can be bought in England only by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions and in Scotland, of course, Ministers have no responsibility for bringing proceedings; nor can private persons.
A case which was indisputably English would not be brought in Scotland, unless for some reason everyone concerned, including the accused agreed and vice versa. With offences committed at sea, it would be impossibly complex to make detailed arrangements covering every circumstance which could arise. If one did make arrangements like this, the result would be unnecessarily inflexible.
The best answer to the Amendment is that it is unnecessary. In any circumstance where the question of conflict of jurisdiction between English or Northern Irish and Scottish courts seems likely to arise, the practice of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland would most certainly be to consult the Lord Advocate before instituting proceedings. I checked this with the Lord Advocate, who is content with the existing wording. Cases of potential conflict arise now in connection with offences committed at sea and no difficulty ever arises in practice.
There are other arguments against the Amendment. First of all, if it were included in the Bill, it would be necessary to make reciprocal provisions for offences committed in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Secondly, it would give rise to considerable argument about whether an offence was committed in Scotland or England. For example, imagine a ship lying in a Scottish port made available for pirate broadcasting under an agreement made in London. Would the offence of furnishing the ship have been committed in Scotland or in England? In waters adjacent to the coast in the vicinity of the border between Scotland and England it might also be extremely difficult to say whether the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of Scottish courts, or the jurisdiction of English courts.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said that he had never seen the like of this in legislation before, and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said that by this Clause we were attacking the Act of Union. In fact, two Acts were passed by a Conservative Government which made the same kind of provision, Section 284 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, and Section 70 of the Post Office Act, 1953. There are two Victorian Acts as well, both Merchant Shipping Acts, and Section 62 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1959, which all deal with this rather difficult point in the same way.
I cannot accept the Amendment, but I will look at the matter again, because I realise that this is an extremely complex problem. However, it is to deal with an extremely complex situation.

Mr. Wylie: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that I have all along accepted the difficulty about offences committed on the high seas. This is not a new problem, and has been dealt with under the Merchant Shipping Act and the Oil Pollution Act. The problem arises here simply in the case of offences committed under certain Clauses of the Bill in Scotland, and there is no justification for a provision of this nature applying as it does to those offences. I think that there is room for restriction. However, in view of the undertaking

which the right hon. Gentleman has generously given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 24, to leave out subsection (4).
I understand that the subsection which the Amendment seeks to delete is not in the usual form, inasmuch as it says that
summary proceedings for an offence under this Act may be instituted at any time within two years from the time when the offence was committed.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ask the Government why it is necessary to have this long period of two years, and I would be grateful for some explanation of it.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The hon. Gentleman tabled an identical Amendment in Committee, and I had hoped that he was satisfied with the answer that I gave there. I hope that the House will forgive me if I try briefly to explain once more why the subsection is necessary.
Not all the offences created by the Bill are appropriate for prosecution on indictment. Nevertheless, it is important that people who commit summary offences should not have an easy way of escaping prosecution. To remove the subsection would be to provide such a means of escape.
Setting a time limit for the institution of summary proceedings is a necessary protection for the citizen against being intimidated by a threat of prosecution for an ancient offence. Normally, and unless the contrary is stated, the limit is six months. However, in some legislation it has been extended, because for various reasons six months would not always be long enough for legal proceedings to be instituted, and I gave the Committee some examples of the limit being extended to three years, and even to six years in the 1952 Income Tax Act.
The reason for the extension in the Bill is that most of the offences created by the Bill will either be committed at sea, or will be such that evidence from people at sea may be needed. There will thus be considerable scope for people to evade prosecution by remaining out of the country, or by arranging for essential witnesses to remain out of the country,


until it is too late for evidence to be obtained in time to bring proceedings within the six months' time limit.
The Government considered various ways of overcoming this difficulty, and we concluded that the most sensible way was to extend the normal time limit for summary proceedings to two years. We believe that this is a reasonable way of deterring people from regularly evading prosecution by remaining at sea. There will still be a certain amount of scope for evasion, but it would not be reasonable to have no time limit at all. I sincerely hope that my explanation will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Channon: I should like to study the explanation we have just had from the Assistant Postmaster-General. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 8, line 33, to leave out 'the Channel Islands'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 20, in Clause 10, page 8, line 36, leave out from 'Man' to 'with' in line 37.

Mr. Channon: I should be equally happy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss also Amendment No. 21, in line 37, leave out 'exceptions'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, if that is acceptable to the House.

Mr. Channon: I do not think that in Committee we had any discussion about the position in regard to the Channel Islands although we had a detailed and long debate on the subject of the Isle of Man. I am no lawyer, and I am certainly not an expert on Channel Island law—I doubt whether many or any hon. Members are. I understand, however, that the position in the Channel Islands is very different from that in the Isle of Man, and I should like to know the Government's intentions with regard to the Channel Islands.
Do they propose after the Bill is passed to make an Order in Council extending its provisions to the Channel

Islands, and do they intend to make that Order extend to all the Channel Islands? They have taken power, which Amendment No. 21 sought to remove, to make exceptions. An Order in Council should deal with all the Channel Islands or with none of them. I cannot see any reason for an exception to that rule.
If the Government intend to make regulations applicable to the Channel Islands, are they certain that such regulations would have any force there? I understand that according to Guernsey law there is no doubt that Orders in Council would have the force of law, but I am advised that the position is very much more doubtful in Jersey. Can the Government confirm that after this Measure has been enacted, the passing of an Order in Council would create an offence? I understand that the question of the power of the Privy Council to legislate for Jersey without the concurrence of the Estates has been raised on a number of occasions. I believe that there is considerable doubt about the position as to Orders in Council made under the Prerogative, and that there is even doubt with regard to an Order in Council made after specific United Kingdom Acts have been passed.
I should be grateful if the Government would clear up our doubts on this point, and tell us their intentions.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Even if the Channel Islands were left out of Clause 10—or even if Clause 10 were deleted altogether—the reference to them in line 33 would have to remain. Amendment No. 20 would prevent the Bill being extended to the Channel Islands.
There was much discussion in Committee about extension of the Bill to the Isle of Man, but there was no comment about extending the provisions to the Channel Islands. They must be extended to the Channel Islands for the same reason that they must be extended to the Isle of Man. As I said in Committee, we are responsible for the international relations of the whole of the British Isles, and we cannot leave any part of them outside the scope of the Bill to form a refuge for pirate broadcasters and so sabotage the European Agreement. The Channel Islands authorities have been consulted on the text of Clause 10 and have not expressed any objection to it.
I take it that Amendment No. 21 is really a probing Amendment, with the purpose of finding out what exceptions, if any, it is intended to make in extending the Bill to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The words "exceptions, adaptations and modifications" are best considered together, since they collectively leave scope for the Bill to be adapted to the particular case of the Islands. The principal exceptions will be in Clause 6. Clause 6(8) is not relevant to the Islands at all and some of the other subsections would not be relevant in their present form. Therefore, Clause 11(2) will also be omitted because the date of the coming into force of the Act in the Islands must be specified in the Order in Council itself.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Chanson: I am grateful to the Assistant Postmaster-General for his reply. I do not wish to bring him to his feet again unless he can give an answer, but I should like to know whether such an Order is prayable against.

Mr. Slater: I understand that it is not.

Mr. Channon: In that case, we would not have an opportunity of debating the matter but, since the hon. Gentleman has told us that the Channel Islands have raised no objection, this appears to be an academic point.
In view of the reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not believe that there is any fundamental disagreement between the two sides of the House about the necessity for the Bill. We as a Government have been building on foundations laid by the last Conservative Government. There has been no difference of approach to this problem—I mean the pirate problem, not the problem of alternatives.
The Council of Europe was itself taking the first practical step to give effect to the prohibition of marine broadcasting embodied in the international Radio Regulations which came into force on the 1st May, 1961. This convention, was an imaginative international approach by the Council of Europe to a common international problem which fell outside the normal jurisdiction of Governments

and which no one Government could solve on its own. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) played a not inconsiderable part in the drafting of the Council of Europe Agreement on broadcasting, which we subsequently signed.
The first recital in the Preamble to the European Agreement reads:
Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its Members.
The stage we have now reached with this legislation today will be a marked indication to our European neighbours of our seriousness of purpose in seeking to achieve this unity.
I cannot sufficiently emphasise how disturbing it has been to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to receive such strong complaints from authorities far and wide in Europe about the serious interference which the pirate broadcasters around our shores have been and are causing to various authorised broadcasting services. As a Government it was our duty to take what steps we could to put an end to this nuisance and the right and proper action to take was to follow the lines which hon. Members opposite helped to lay down in Strasbourg and to legislate as the House is now doing in this Bill.
Some of my hon. Friends behind me may still think that we could have gone farther than we have in creating offences to put a stop to this selfish disregard of the orderly regulation of frequency usage and of the rights of copyright owners, but I am convinced that we have, in the Bill, a legislative weapon which will be effective for its purpose.
To mention only a few of the difficulties which the pirate broadcasters will encounter: they will not be able to have offices here, or run their ships from here, or have advertising headquarters here, or to be supplied from here. No one in this country will be allowed to advertise on pirate stations.
When more European countries legislate on these lines the effect will, of course, be even more drastic, but from today, I suggest, these gamblers who have been playing for quite high stakes will begin to realise that soon the game will not be worth the candle.
This is as it should be. In a rapidly shrinking world, in which our actions


impinge more and more on our neighbours—whether it be in the use of supersonic aircraft or speed boats or fast cars or the importation and transportation of oil-precautions, controls and restraints in certain fields of public concern become more and more imperative.
In the case of radio, where the legitimate claims on the limited frequency spectrum grow from year to year, the need for order is paramount if wavelengths are to be usable at all in the future, and the House has taken a significant policing step in bringing this Bill to Third Reading.
In many respects the provisions break novel ground—if I may use this metaphor for a marine Bill. I should like to congratulate the draftsmen on producing, in these circumstances, a piece of legislation at once concise and comprehensive.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Bryan: I wanted to say all the happy things which are often said on the Third Reading of the Bill, but this has been an unhappy Bill, conceived in guilt and born in most embarrassing circumstances. The delivery has been especially painful to Government back benchers like the hon. Members for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and Meriden (Mr. Rowland), who, over the last two years, no doubt pressed their case on the Chief Whip of the day and received the usual reply that it was not possible to put the legislation through.
They now discover that in five short Committee meetings we have more than squeezed the Bill dry. However, the Postmaster-General has steadfastly kept up his theory that attack is the best method of defence. He has said that our motto has been "Popularity before legality". It is absolutely certain from what we have heard that his motto has been "Popularity before legislation".
All the way through, once the Bill obtained its Second Reading, it has been the opinion of this side of the House that the most important improvement which could be made in Committee was to get the balance of the Bill right, to see that its powers were adequate but no more than adequate. In its original form, the Bill contained all the heavy-handed over-insurance of an over-frightened Government. To rid himself of these terrible

pirates, the Postmaster-General was willing to make everybody criminals.
We were told in Committee that even the ardent evangelist who allowed his sermon to be reproduced on broadcast was liable to be put in prison. We were told that a parson who thanked Radio X for giving the date of his church bazaar could be thrown into chains. None of this nonsense have we been successful in removing, either by ridicule or by argument. We have merely frightened the Postmaster-General into increasing the penalties once again, and these clearly innocent types are still to be criminals.
I cannot understand why, in the later stages of the Bill, the Postmaster-General has not found an opportunity to humanise the Bill to some extent by getting rid of some of these less important crimes. One of the most revealing debates we had in Committee was that in which we tried to get the word "knowingly" inserted in significant places in the Bill. Even that was not allowed, although obviously it would have done almost no good at all.
It would be out of order at this stage of the Bill to talk once again about alternatives.
We have discussed at great length already the effects on the offshore radio stations which, in terms of personalities, I suppose, amount to a few score characters. The effect on listeners is far more widespread and may affect 20 million people or more. All the way through the effect on listeners has been underplayed by the Postmaster-General in probably the natural, human way in which we all relegate to the backs of our minds anything unpleasant or anything for which we feel slightly or more responsible.
There has been the suggestion that this audience is really a teenage affair and that it will settle down quite soon to Radio 247. In fact, I think that we all believe, certainly the professional and acute advertisers believe, that the public for this sort of radio is very much wider—old-age pensioners, housewives, and so on—and that these people have now been led to regard these programmes as perfectly legitimate and a reasonable expectation.
Whatever the Postmaster-General says, they will have every right to protest when the programmes are suddenly stopped and nothing faintly familiar is offered in their


place. The public has had a brief look beyond the limits of monopoly radio and it has liked what it has seen. This uncontrolled enjoyment has so rattled a Socialist Government that we are condemned to monopoly until the Conservatives come back to set the people free.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: To listen to the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) one would hardly credit that when they were the Government hon. Members opposite announced their intention of introducing legislation to do precisely the same as the Bill which my right hon. Friend has just brought towards its conclusion. It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman's definition of setting the people free is setting the gangsters free.
As I said in Committee, this is Conservatism driven to its logical conclusion and it is most fortunate for the honour of the Conservative Party that throughout these discussions both here and in Committee it has had the presence of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) who has consistently spoken in a manner which has done credit to him and the party which he represents.
At no time has the hon. Member attempted to move away from the clear position that when they were the Government the Opposition intended to introduce legislation which, while it may not have been exactly the same as this, had the same object and the same intent as this. This is a very creditable thing, if I may say so, but I see by the bent of your head, Mr. Speaker, that I am inclining beyond what is permissible, and I will, therefore, not risk saying more on that line.
Perhaps I may be permitted a word of general support for the Government in their actions on this matter. As my right hon. Friend has said, in considering the question of alternatives there have been differences of view on this side and on the other side of the House. I cannot do more than mention that the alternative which has been proposed is not that which I would have advocated, but there has been no difference of opinion on this side about the desirability of disposing of this illegal form of broadcasting, although, I am sorry to say, there has been some difference among hon. Members opposite.
Finally, I hope that when the Bill goes to another place their Lordships will consider the possibility that, in addition to what it already provides, the Bill should make it illegal to sell or offer for sale any article or product advertised by means of a broadcast made on a pirate radio. I suggest that for consideration by another place, because if that is not done there is a grave risk that British-based companies will be at a disadvantage compared with international companies which are based primarily overseas.
With those words I welcome the approach of the conclusion of our consideration of the Bill. I hope that when it comes into effect it will do the job which it is intended to do. I sincerely hope that the proposed alternatives will, in the course of time fill the gap which the removal of the pirates, undesirable though they are in principle, will undoubtedly leave in the lives of many people.

9.29 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I spoke at some length on Second Reading and I shall endeavour, therefore, to make suitable amends by being brief now. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I voted against the Second Reading, but not because we do not believe that measures of this kind must be undertaken. We said then and we say again now that, in our view, action of the kind envisaged under the Bill must be undertaken. We accept that the use of the air through frequencies and wavelengths must be rationed and must be internationally controlled. We accept that there is need to protect the interests of shipping. We accept that the interests of radio astronomy must be protected.

It being half-past Nine o'clock the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Marine &amp;c., Broadcasting (Offences) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour though opposed.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Dr. Winstanley: We accept that certain interests should receive some protection, although we do not go so far as some hon. Members would, and that musicians,


owners of copyright and so on are entitled to protection. We accept, also, that control of the air is vital if we are to prevent broadcasting being used for illegal political purposes.
For all those reasons, we were in favour, and are still in favour, of the measures in the Bill, but in seeing it have a Third Reading we have no sense of happiness or spirit of gaiety because we regret that other things have not been done at the same time. We voted against the Second Reading because we thought that it was not good enough for the Government to come along at the eleventh hour, having done nothing for two or three years, and ask the House to help them to get their chestnuts out of the fire. Our position is still the same, but we shall nevertheless support the Third Reading. However, we hope that between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place we shall have heard more about alternative courses.
We agree with many of the comments made by hon. Members on this side in the debate. We agree with much of what they have said about its defects, but we accept that some control must be applied. Our only regret is that, in applying that control, we are putting an end to the supply of something for which there is a sound demand, and we are, in my view, putting an end to something which people want and which the Postmaster-General could have given them by other means. I hope that, before the Bill becomes law, the right hon. Gentleman will have given people the things they want by some other means so that the Bill will not be an intolerable imposition but will be a useful Measure which the whole House can then support.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This is a bad Bill. It is an anti-democratic Bill, because it goes right against the wishes of the clear majority of the people of Britain. This is not in dispute.
In my judgment, the Bill starts with envy, envy of success, for the pirate radio stations have been a success. It goes on from envy to spite. The Government were defied and they have determined to suppress. They have produced a Bill on this basis which is a compound of technical ignorance, financial ignorance and ignorance of the consumer, and, what is

more, it is a piece of consummate humbug of the kind to which we have been treated by the Postmaster-General on several occasions today.
One of my hon. Friends said of the Government that they were taking a sadistic delight in suppression. I have no doubt of this. As I listened to the Postmaster-General on Second Reading, I was reminded of the inquisitors who said that they were condemning and punishing people in order to save their immortal souls. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was studded with words of oppression, including—I have taken them from his speech—to condemn, to suppress, to deprive, to prohibit, to control and to punish.
What a splendid catalogue of words from a Minister who has told us today that he was considering the consumer! How much better it would be if, instead of suppressing those radio stations, he attended to the business of getting our letters delivered on time, or making our telephone service work a little better!

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just a little outside the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have no desire to attack the public service principles of the B.B.C. I have no personal interest in pirate radio stations. If it can be proved that they have stolen other people's copyright, by all means punish them for that. If they interfere with legitimate transmissions, by all means push them off the frequencies where they offend. If they interfere with other broadcasts of legitimate organisations, by all means punish them for that.
But it is one thing to punish the pirates for particular offences, once they are proved, and quite another matter to use Parliament to obliterate them altogether. What the pirates have proved—I defy hon. Members opposite to deny it—is that large numbers of the British people want, and are determined to have, a much greater variety of sound radio than they can get from the present monopoly. I hope that the Postmaster-General will not imagine that all those who listen to pirates are irresponsible teenagers. On the contrary, they are large. numbers of our fellow citizens in all walks of life, men and women, rich and poor, country


folk and town dwellers, who are now to be deprived of what they enjoy.
Another group of people who have particularly appreciated the service the pirates offered is the businessmen, a group on whom the Government like to cast slurs when it suits them but to whom they must go for help when they wish our economy to thrive. Dozens of company chairmen have appeared on Radio 390. Among the firms which have pushed up the pirates' advertising revenues to very large sums were Unilever, Beechams, Shell, the Egg Marketing Board and, believe it or not, the B.B.C. itself—although its directors did not know. Is that not an extraordinary situation?
The pirates have been a success story and it is for that reason, because they have demonstrated that enterprise and competition can create a new and profitable business, that the Socialists want to destroy them. For precisely the same reason, I oppose this kill-joy Bill, because, behind all the fancy words in it, it is an act of petty bumbledom, behind which lurks the notion so dear to the right hon. Gentleman that the people are not to be trusted, that they must hear only what he believes they should listen to.
I should like to examine briefly the charges which the Government have brought against the pirate stations and the arguments the Government now give us for consideration. They say that the pirates have not paid royalties. The truth is that some have and some have not, and it would have been much wiser to punish those who have failed rather than to seek to obliterate them all.
The Government also claim that the pirates have interfered with shipping. I have asked pilots on the North Sea ferries whether that is so, and they tell me that it is not. I have not seen a single example cited by hon. Members opposite of a case where shipping has been interfered with by those stations. I was told by one master mariner that he was always very pleased to listen to Radio Caroline, because he then knew where he was.
The most serious accusation that the Government have made is that the pirates are breaking international agreements.

It is a serious matter if they break international agreements, but they are not the only ones. Altogether 208 wavelengths were allotted under the 1948 Copenhagen Agreement. Today, more than 300 additional stations over and above that allocation are operating without authorised wavelengths. Among these are the Voice of America, Budapest and Baghdad radios, half a dozen Communist stations, and, for good measure, Vatican Radio, too. I would say that we cannot have a holier pirate than that. The Copenhagen Agreement and what has flowed from it needs to be renegotiated. Of course that is so—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going a little wide now.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if I was carried away and strayed beyond the frequencies on which I am allowed to operate this evening.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must come back again.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It does not lie well with hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have presided over the breaking of international agreement with our E.F.T.A. partners, who have broken faith with the Aden Protectorate, to make a breach of international agreement the reason for the suppression of these stations.
The heart of the matter is that the Bill is being forced through the House of Commons against the wishes of the majority of the British people, against the belief, in my view, of the majority of the Members of this House, simply because the Socialist Party does not really like what the pirates are offering. I do not like a lot of it, either, but I hope that I shall never be so arrogantly cocksure of my own dislikes as to impose them on others.
Higher standards, if we are to have them in radio broadcasting in this country, cannot be legislated; they can come only through competition and enterprise. That is why I believe that this Bill is a bad Bill. I hope that the day will come when my hon. Friend on the Opposition Bench will stand there at that Dispatch Box and will introduce a general broadcasting Bill which will provide the British people with what they are entitled to


have, wider, free choice of commercial radio, and which will wipe from the Statute Book the very bad Bill with which we are being burdened this evening.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Rowland: Though I am tempted to pursue if not to save the immortal soul of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) I should be out of order if I tried to do that, and, indeed, I do not know where it would get me, either.
I should like quickly to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on successfully concluding this part of the passage of the Bill. It may have been coincidence only—I am sure he would say it was only coincidence—that the action which was called for was taken soon after he took his present office; but, coincidence or not, his name will be associated with it, and I should like to congratulate him on having taken effective action in the last few months.
The Bill is the beginning of the end of a discreditable chapter in the history of British broadcasting. I freely confess that it has never been far from my mind, and I trust it has not been far from the minds of many hon. Members, that what in many ways the whole argument has been about is not only wavelengths or copyright or interference, but the question of the standards of British broadcasting.
I have always taken the view that experience abroad, particularly in North America, has shown that the end product of commercial stations competing with one another for advertising is a low level of broadcasting, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, whose admiration for the United States is in many ways equalled only by my own—I speak as a very great pro-American on these benches—I am surprised that an hon. Member who knows America as well as he does—should not have been able to have learned certain lessons about commercial radio from American experience.
What I think doubly remarkable is that the pirate radio system, if one may call it that, has been operating without any regulation whatever. It is not only commercial

radio, but unregulated commercial radio. Even the United States have a Federal Communications Commission, even though its powers may not always be effective.
I am surprised that any hon. Member opposite should, as it were, have sprung to the defence of an unregulated pirate radio system around our shores. My right hon. Friend, in moving the Third Reading, was more generous to the Opposition Front Bench than I would have been or it deserved. You, Mr. Speaker, will doubtless explain to me if I am out of order in saying that, on the Bill, the Opposition Front Bench has engaged in a sustained exercise in controlled hypocrisy.
When they were the Government, right hon. Gentlemen opposite put their hands to this kind of legislation which was needed to put the pirate radio stations off the air. Now, in opposition, they have deliberately confused this question, about which there should be no argument on either side of the House, with the other question—perfectly genuine and a legitimate subject for debate—about the legitimate radio system within the country.
The Opposition should have given the Bill an unopposed free run and tackled us, if they wished, on the Government's alternative proposals. The confusion of the two has been hypocritical and they have done it because they have hoped to curry some favour in the public mind by appearing to be in favour of the pirates and pop music. To this extent, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has been more honest than his Front Bench colleagues. He is in favour of these stations continuing to operate.
I hope that, now that the Bill is nearly on the Statute Book my right hon. Friend will turn his formidable attention to ensuring a viable system of financing public service radio, both local and national. He knows, because I have expressed my opinion earlier, that I have some reservations about the proposed method of financing local public service radio.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not tempt himself to go out of order.

Mr. Rowland: I will resist that temptation immediately, Sir, and in my peroration say that, with the Bill nearly on the Statute Book, the way will now be clear for further measures for the benefit of and service to the radio system of this country along the lines which my right hon. Friend started to indicate in his White

Paper. The Bill has been the essential prerequisite to further steps in strengthening our public service radio system.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — PAY INCREASES (CROWN BEDDING COMPANY)

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Temporary Restrictions on Pay Increases (20th July 1966 Levels) (No. 3) Order 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 216), dated 22nd February 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be annulled.
This Prayer is yet another in the series directed against the attempts of the Government to enforce their compulsory prices and incomes policy, a policy of compulsion and intimidation to which we on this side and, indeed, a number of hon. Members opposite are vigorously and, I believe, increasingly opposed. This Order is made under Section 29 of the Prices and Incomes Act. It deals with the case of about 20 road transport drivers, members of the Transport and General Workers' Union, employed by the Crown Bedding Company Birmingham Limited.
Like all the other Orders that we have debated since the passing of the Act, this one raises important points of principle and, as in those other cases, it is necessary to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to clarify those points. Indeed, we seem to be building up a kind of case law on these Orders which is clarifying the way in which the Government's policy is working—and a sorry picture it presents.
The House will have noticed that we have only had one Order on price control and I make no complaint about that. We have had a total of eight Orders, in addition to this one, on the question of incomes control. It seems likely that in the coming months we shall have an increasingly large number.
The recent White Paper says that it has only been necessary to make Orders under Part IV in a relatively small number of cases. Clearly this is yet another in the list and it seems likely that we shall have more as the Government policy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We can discuss only this Order.

Mr. Higgins: I appreciate that point, and for this reason, among others, I am glad that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is to reply to this debate. It would be wrong of me to say that I have grown accustomed to his face, because I suffer from the remarks based on a certain musical show. None the less, I should perhaps point out that we had hoped to come on as a kind of afternoon matinee, whereas we appear to be back to our usual late-night show. We are glad of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is to reply, because he is becoming very expert indeed in the various matters which these Orders, and this one in particular, raise.
The first point to which I turn is the fact this Order will, no doubt, be justified, as others have been, on the ground that the Government's incomes policy is universal. This Order is interesting inasmuch as it brings up, for the first time, an Order concerned with the Transport and General Workers' Union. In this context it is relevant to ask exactly what percentage of workers who are being covered by the Government's overall policy are members of trade unions and to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give us some figures in this respect.
I want next to consider the history of this case. It would appear to be somewhat simpler than some of the others with which we have had to deal. The Crown Bedding Company Birmingham Limited is a subsidiary of Slumberland Limited, and it employs the 20 drivers I have already mentioned, who are responsible for operating "C" vehicles. These vehicles supply, from the Company's centre in Birmingham, the various factories of the Crown Bedding Company, which are widespread throughout the country.
The company clearly depends for the success of its operations on the fact that the raw materials are transmitted from the centre in Birmingham to the various subsidiary factories. The last pay agreement which these drivers had was dated 30th August, 1965. It expired on 30th August, 1966, and the Crown Bedding Company decided that it should observe the Government's standstill on prices and incomes, and the criteria for severe restraint following the freeze, set out in the Government's White Papers. It therefore told the Transport and General


Workers' Union that it could not negotiate a new agreement.
Under the agreement which expired on 30th August the drivers' basic rate was £14 15s. 6d. for a 42-hour week. With overtime earnings probably came to something over £20 a week. The Transport and General Workers' Union, when that agreement was due to expire put in a claim for an additional £1 14s. 6d., and also a cut in working hours from 42 hours per standard week to 41 hours. It asked that the increase in pay and reduction in hours should take place from 1st January. The company, although it was not obliged to do so under the terms of the Government's White Paper, notified the Government that it had had this claim and it was in turn informed that it was a breach of the standstill. I would be grateful if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would confirm that this was said to the company both in respect of the working hours and the increase in pay.
On 2nd January, because the Government said that the claim was in breach of the standstill, and the firm said that it could not accept it, the drivers of the Crown Bedding Company went on strike. As a result of this, the company decided that it would have to pay the claim, because of the effect of the strike upon its entire operations. Following this, on 7th February, the Secretary of State gave notice of his intention to make an Order and this Order was made on 22nd February, and it came into operation on 23rd February. Under this Order, as in other cases, the firm is now forbidden to pay an increase above the level laid down on 20th July without getting permission from the relevant Minister.
This situation raises a number of interesting questions, and I should be glad if we could have specific answers to them from the Parliamentary Secretary. The first point arises for this reason. The Transport and General Workers Union put in the claim for £1 14s. 6d. and a reduction in working hours. As a result of the Government's prices and incomes policy the action which the union took and the strike apparently no negotiations took place. The normal process of negotiation, whereby the justification for a wage claim is put forward by the union and the employers said whether they feel

that it was justified, did not take place. A crisis situation was created by the mere fact that the Government had announced their policy, and the union therefore felt that it should straight away take strike action instead of negotiating.
Clearly, this was an unusual situation because in normal circumstances a compromise might well have been reached. But because of the freeze tension had built up between union and management, unlike the normal atmosphere in which negotiations could be settled, and the union went straight to strike action. The settlement, when it was made, was for the full amount.
This raises some interesting points as to what will happen when the negotiations are subsequently reopened. It seems to me inconceivable that the firm, having once conceded the full amount of the claim, will later, when the freeze comes off and the period of severe restraint ends, try to negotiate for a smaller amount. Taking a period of several years from the beginning of the freeze period, the settlement of the claim may ultimately be more inflationary than it would have been if there had been no Government Order and if the Government's policy had not been introduced.
Secondly, we need to consider the position concerning the increase in pay which has actually been paid. We have a precedent for this in the previous cases which we have debated. In the Metropolitan Police draughtsmen's case, the House will recall that the Government attempted to freeze the pay of those workers for more than the period during which other workers who had not pressed their claims had their pay frozen. By this means the Government were effectively trying to claw back from the workers who had broken the freeze the amount which they would have actually been paid in the interim period before the Government imposed their Order. This appeared to be the Government's policy.
In the Denby pottery case, the situation was less clear because the Parliamentary Secretary declined to say exactly what period would be covered by the Government's Order, and he said that we should have to wait to see what decision the First Secretary took. But I think that it is relevant to ask the Parliamentary Secretary on this Order tonight what the


Government's policy is. Is it their policy to use orders to freeze people's pay for a longer period than is the case with other similar workers and thereby claw back any amount paid, or is it merely their policy to freeze the pay for the same length of time as other similar workers who have not succeeded in pressing their claim?
I hope that we shall have a clear statement from the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter. Consistency certainly has not been the hallmark of this Government in many respects, there seems to be some inconsistency in these Orders which we have had to consider and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to clarify the position.
Thirdly, what is the position on timing from a legal point of view? This is, I think, the first Order which, even if it is only designed to cover the shorter time—just six months—will go beyond the date when Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act expires. The Prices and Incomes Act, Part IV, expires on 11th August. If, however, the pay of this group of workers is frozen for six months, that will run beyond 11th August to 23rd August. Is it within the power of the Government under existing legislation to continue to impose the Order after 11th August and until 23rd August? I do not expect the Parliamentary Secretary to anticipate any further legislation, but can he at least tell us the position under Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act, which, we were assured by the former First Secretary of State when it was passed, would not be extended beyond 11th August?
My next point concerns the reports of the Prices and Incomes Board. We were assured by the Parliamentary Secretary on 7th March in a debate on the limb-fitters Order that the Government were committed to and bound by whatever recommendations the Board might make on the matter then under consideration. As to other cases, however, the Government have been far from clear that they will always accept what the Board says. Take, for example, the Board's Report on the road haulage industry. It is clear to a number of us on this side that very often, whatever may be the merits of the Board's recommendations, the decision whether the Government shall implement them is purely a political matter. The

Board's Reports are a useful political tool for the Government to employ.
One point, however, on which the Board and the Government are certainly agreed is that a reduction in working hours without any other compensating adjustments is equivalent to a wage increase. I wish to know, therefore, from the Parliamentary Secretary whether this Order covers only the wage claim of £1 14s. 6d. or whether it covers also the reduction in the working week. I understand that it does not cover the reduction in working hours which took place before the Order and, I understand, is still taking place. How does the Parliamentary Secretary justify the narrowness of the Order? If it is to be imposed at all—and we on this side do not think that it should be—it should at least cover both the wage increase and the reduction in working hours. We look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's confirmation of this.
It cannot have escaped the notice of the House that the case which we are considering results from the fact that the firm voluntarily notified the likelihood of the increase. After that had happened, the Government imposed an Order. The firm was not obliged to notify the fact that the increase had taken place. From the relevant White Paper, one discovers that firms employing fewer than 200 workers are not required to notify an increase. The firm in question did so, however, and the result is that the Government have imposed a discriminatory Order upon it.
The Order raises some complicated points on which I hope that we shall have an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary. One thing at least which is clear from the Order is that the Government's policy is becoming quite impossible to operate on an equitable basis. It is clear that far from having a policy which, their White Paper claims, depends on voluntary action, they are depending on this kind of compulsory Order to intimidate other people into conforming with their policy. This is discriminatory. It cannot result in an equitable solution to the economic problems facing the country. For this reason. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby against it this evening.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I should like to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who has, with characteristic force and lucidity, employed the very powerful arguments which there are against this Order. I want to confine myself just to one or two aspects of the Order which merit the attention of the House even at this relatively late hour.
The prices and incomes policy, as it is developing as a result of Orders under Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act, is seen as a particularly arbitrary and capricious instrument, and possibly never so much as with the Order which we are now discussing. The Schedule to the Order says that it affects the remuneration for work as road transport drivers employed by the Crown Bedding Company Birmingham Ltd. One might ask how many are affected by the Order, and my information suggests that it is 20. I think that that is information on which I may proceed, because it was revealed in an answer from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary himself—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): Then it is bound to be right.

Mr. Biffen: With characteristic modesty, the Parliamentary Secretary endorses my observation.
Apparently, there are 20 men whose activities imperil the Government's prices and incomes policy, so the full forces of the law will be invoked. What is the misdemeanour of those 20 men? It is that they have sought to obtain the market rate for the skills which they have to offer. However, the real misdemeanour of those 20 men lies in the word "employed". They are employed by the Crown Bedding Co. Birmingham Ltd. If they had acquired the expertise in the skills of self-employment which is now developing in a number of industries, possibly as contract transport drivers, they would have escaped the Order. They would have got away. The House would not have been expected to deploy its time, energies and resources in the kind of nonsense in which we are now expected to participate.
That is the real measure of the Government's prices and incomes policy as it operates in the workshop, on the building

site and wherever else attempts are made by bureaucracy to frustrate the normal forces of supply and demand.
The other point raised by my hon. Friend was to ask why mention is made of these people in the Schedule. It is on account of the mistaken policy of the Crown Bedding Company in running to the Ministry of Labour to ask whether or not it could proceed with its proposal. Let it be clearly understood that there was no legal requirement that the Ministry of Labour should be informed of this proposal. It was the company's somewhat rigorous interpretation of the White Paper on Severe Restraint, which said that for those employing less than 200 there was no need to inform the Ministry of Labour unless the proposal was thought to have much wider significance. It was that rigorous interpretation one assumes, which sent the Crown Bedding Company Birmingham Ltd. scurrying to the Ministry of Labour—

Mr. Stanley Henig: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any reason why it could be conceivably in the interests of that company to go to the Ministry to inquire about this matter?

Mr. Biffen: I suppose that there will always be situations in which certain employers would like to use Government Departments as a shield against the activities of those who seek to increase employees' wages. That could be a proposition to which I would assent—

Mr. Nigel Birch: The company probably had not read the Bill.

Mr. Biffen: That may be. I was trying to answer in a generous spirit. As to whether this is something which the House should accept, endorse or applaud I leave to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) to resolve with his hon. Friends. I do not ask him to resolve it with me.
It raises a much wider point, because the argument constantly employed by the Parliamentary Secretary when we are asked to take these immense legal powers against dribs and drabs of 20 here and a dozen there is that this is the only way of ensuring a universally observed policy. I can do no better than quote his own words on 22nd March:
I am saying that by and large the country voluntarily accepted the prices and incomes


policy and those who have not accepted it have been caught by an Order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 1860.]
But this reminds me of the epigram of the late Dr. Jowett, Master of Balliol, who said:
First came I, my name is Jowett,
There is no knowledge, but I know it;
I am Master of this College,
What I don't know isn't knowledge.
Whatever price and income increases are not known to the Ministry of Labour for the purposes of these debates are assumed never to have taken place.
One can put up with so much nonsense, but we now have to put up with this week in and week out. The Parliamentary Secretary accuses people like me of making wild, unsubstantiated accusations. When we say that the 20 transport drivers employed by the Crown Bedding Company are caught when many have got away, he says that the charges are unsubstantiated. I tell him that I know of many instances, but he will not be an agent provocateur to get me to sneak on employers or workers who make arrangements which are perfectly within the law, but fall without the indicated wishes of him and his colleagues in Government White Papers.
I am glad to know that we shall be voting tonight, not merely to attempt to get some justice for the 20 employees of the Crown Bedding Company, but also against the perpetuation of this nonsensical prices and incomes policy.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I support enthusiastically everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), except that I favour more the observation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) that the company probably had not read the Bill. I would imagine that it had not understood it and, naturally, wished to put itself right with the authorities.
From the beginning, I have regarded this policy as anathema. I dislike it intensely and am very sorry that the party of which I am a member did not vote against the Bill root and branch right from the start. No one in the House would suggest that industrial relations is an area of such peace, good will and harmony that it can bear the intervention

of a third party with such a load of nonsense as the Government have imported.
I hope that we will have a number of opportunities such as are afforded by the Order to show how absurd, impracticable and unenforceable is a policy which brings Parliament to the consideration of issues like these at this hour of the night.
We are concerned with 20 people. The circumstances have been adequately described by my hon. Friend and I only wish to refer briefly to one of the paragraphs in the Order. Paragraph 4 says:
In a case where the normal working hours for the work are such as to fall within the meaning of 'normal working hours' given by sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Contracts of Employment Act 1963 (that is to say, where the contract of employment provides for a fixed number of hours without overtime) remuneration for work in the normal working hours, and for work outside those hours, shall be considered separately, except that if the number of normal working hours at the later time is less the rate of remuneration for work outside those hours at the later time for a period equal to the difference shall be compared with the rate of remuneration for work in the normal working hours at the earlier time.
On previous occasions I have suggested that Ministers would be deservedly well punished by having to listen to that sort of stuff read to them night after night, day after day, month after month, and year after year throughout eternity. It is a terrible thing to inflict this kind of legislation on Parliament, and it is even worse to extend it to industry. I do not believe that that sort of stuff can be stuck up in any factory in the country with any possibility of it being understood, let alone the justice of it being perceptible.
I believe that as time goes on the Government will have reason to be thoroughly ashamed of having, with complete arrogance, intruded into a field where the details and complexity are far beyond their comprehension, let alone their control. I only wish to support with all the vigour that I can all that has been said by my hon. Friends.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I propose to make a brief intervention in support of the Order. It seems to me that the argument which


we have heard from the benches opposite is almost completely without substance. We heard a number of interesting but minor details from the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). He asked about the future of claims which are relevant to the Order. He complained about its timing, asked about a couple of days, and also complained about possible future Prices and Incomes Board reports.
I do not think that this has amounted to a substantial attack on the Order, designed to persuade the House to vote against it. If the Opposition really believe that this Order should not be passed, they ought to submit arguments to show that it is against an increase which is justified.
Following the speech of the hon. Member for Worthing, we heard an even weaker attack from the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), which consisted primarily of some rhetorical rubbish, some second-rate invective, and the reading rather than the coining of epigrams. It seems to me that there is no point in shouting across the Chamber about 20 men, because the number of men involved does not invalidate the Order. It does not matter whether we are dealing with a million men or one man. The point is that this wage increase was a clear breach of the standstill. The Government had no alternative to bringing in this Order.
I would remind the House that if the Order was not brought into operation the probable repercussions could he very significant. As has been mentioned by hon. Members opposite, the union concerned is the Transport and General Workers' Union. It is well known here that the leader of that union, a very respected member of this House until a short time ago, is very strongly against the Government's prices and incomes policy. It is understandable from the point of view of the Transport and General Workers' Union that his union should make no effort to restrain its members when they seek a wage increase which they regard as justified.
It is, therefore, the job of the Government to ensure that the prices and incomes policy, as they see it, is maintained by the imposition of an Order,

as a wage increase in this form would have meant a breach of that policy. I contend that if Orders of this kind are not made when wage increases are implemented, irrespective of the number concerned, the dam will be breached. We all know that a freeze is followed by a flood, and if there is an unfreezing at this stage by a number of cases like this the whole incomes policy is torn to bits.
Despite the contribution to the debate by the hon. Member for Oswestry, I assume that the Opposition are as committed as much as we are in this respect, so I hope that the House will approve the Order.

10.21 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: First, I draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) the fact that we voted against the Bill on 14th July, 1966—

Mr. Peyton: On a reasoned Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: Yes.
I believe that this Order is the most significant of all the Orders relating to prices and incomes policy we have debated, because the company, by its public spiritedness, or by its lack of efficiency, or by its not having read or understood the Bill, notified the Ministry of this increase to its 20 transport drivers when it had no statutory need to do any such thing. Had it not notified the Ministry—and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary categorically to answer this point—presumably those 20 drivers would now be enjoying in peace and quietude the increase in wages and the reduction in hours, as no one would have known that they had got them.
This is the whole basis of the injustice of the present Government's policy. About 25 million people are employed in this country, of whom 10 million are trade unionists, many of them working in plants employing a lot fewer than 200 people. It is only in the larger units that notification is necessary. A small firm employing, say, five transport drivers can give them an increase and be under no necessity of notifying the Ministry. There is no necessity for it to do anything, and no necessity for an Order like this to be debated. If the


party opposite believes this to be a fair system, I am glad that there are so many hon. Members on the opposite side who share my view that it is unfair, and that it creates enormous antagonism among the working population.
If one is in an organised community one is caught by the Government's legislation; if one works in a smaller unit, one is not caught. It is only because this firm, perhaps by inefficiency, perhaps because of public spiritedness, or because it did not understand the Bill, notified the Ministry. The Ministry therefore brings in this Order to stop something of which it would never even have known but for the mistake of the management.
This company is an example of, not one, but thousands of small and medium-sized firms which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said, are not inhibited at all by the Government's legislation. We are, therefore, building up a division between the working people of this country, some feeling that they are victimised by the Government's policies and others feeling that they can get away with it. This is creating distortion and is not solving the Government's problems nor the problems of the nation.
The whole power of the State is to be mobilised about 20 drivers of the Crown Bedding Company. I have no doubt that they deserve this increase. I have no doubt that they laboured all through the night so that Labour Members engaged in debates on the Iron and Steel Bill could sleep throughout the night. They deserve being paid overtime and having their hours reduced to carry out that public service.
We do not know what made the management of this firm decide that these drivers needed this increase or what special circumstances there are concerning these 20 drivers. It may be that in the area in which the firm operates if it had not given the increase it would have lost all the drivers who would have gone to work for someone else. Good luck to them. The firm may have had to give the increase to maintain its efficiency. Do the Government know this? Have the Government even begun to investigate it before they produced this Order? They produced this Order in a vacuum because it fits in with their

ideological hidebound idea that from a central point in the country they can control all the activities of 25 million workers.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil. I do not believe that the State, in a free society, can achieve that object. All that the Government are doing is attacking little groups of people, because every Order we have debated on this matter has affected no more than about 100. The Orders affect those who cannot defend themselves and they are supposed to bring some form of social justice but never in the whole history of our democracy was such a charade and injustice created in the field of what is known as social justice.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I have been provoked into intervening briefly in this debate by the remarks of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who somehow manages to reduce many of the most important issues we debate in this House to comedy and farce. Opponents of this Order from the other side of the House have gone the whole range of farce, comedy and tragedy and, above all, of sheer, downright hypocrisy. Yet if only they had acted in 1962 and 1963 in the way they say now they would act if they were in power, the situation might have been entirely different.
Added to all this comedy, farce, tragedy and hypocrisy, the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), from the Front Bench opposite, asked some questions of the Parliamentary Secretary. He asked whether or not the Order covers these drivers because of a few days of grace. He was guilty of the very same charge, levelled by one of his hon. Friends, that some of the management of the firm had not read the Bill. It is obvious that he himself has not read the Prices and Incomes Act.

Mr. Higgins: If the hon. Gentleman reads HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that the statement which he attributes to me does not appear in my speech.

Mr. Lomas: We can check HANSARD tomorrow to see whether my recollection is correct, but I recall the hon. Gentleman querying the point about this part of the Act expiring on 11th August whereas it clearly states in Section 25(4)


that the period of 12 months covers such a period. While many of us on this side of the House may have our difference among ourselves, I for one take the view that it was necessary to have these reserve powers to deal with precisely this kind of problem. I am a member of a trade union representing National Health Service workers who are on a much lower rate of pay than are these people who, we are told, have an average wage of £20 a week with overtime. If they were allowed to get another 34s. 6d. a week, there would be an outcry not from 20 men, but from 200,000 or 300,000 or more in other sections of industry.
Although this is hard justice, it therefore seems right and inevitable that if this part of the Act is to work effectively, it should be applied to all sections. If there is brought to the Minister's notice something which contravenes the Act, some action must be taken to close the gap, and that is what the Order seeks to do.
When people go on strike, in a sense as a direct attack on the way in which the matter has been handled, it should be remembered that since these Orders were brought into force there have been fewer strikes during the whole of 1966 than in the previous year.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing the Government's prices and incomes policy. We are discussing the Order which is before us. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the Order.

Mr. Lomas: I return to the Order, Sir.
I understand that the last pay increase agreement was made on 30th August, 1965, and that it expired 12 months later. If the increase sought did not fulfil the criteria laid down by the Government, then, in the interests of all other sections of workers in industry and everyone else in the country, these workers must take their turn in the queue. There must be no queue jumping.
It is precisely because of that that the Government are compelled to make this Order. It is only the eighth Order to be made, a clear indication of the effectiveness of the policy which has been pursued. There was no alternative to the action which the Government took,

and it was right and proper for them to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that there are two Prayers to be debated tonight.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the point. If this firm had not made a mistake, the Ministry would not have known anything about this increase, and there was no statutory necessity for the firm to do anything about it.

Mr. Lomas: That may be so, but it does not alter the fact that once the information had been laid before the Minister there was nothing he could do but act in accordance with Part IV of the Act, which is what he did.
I hope that it will be recognised that the making of this Order is not an attack on 20 people employed by Slumberland, or the Crown Bedding Company, but is an attempt to create a sense of understanding among everyone that someone or somebody cannot be allowed through if others are then to be expected to await their claims, and that there must be justice to all. That is what the Order is intended to do and I hope that it will receive the support of the House.

10.35 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I have an interest in matters of this kind because I have for many years employed "C" licence drivers. There are 1·3 million "C" licence drivers employed in this country today by many hundreds of thousands of firms. There is a national basic minimum wage. There are 1,000 different rates of pay for a standard 42-hour week, ranging from the basic minimum up to figures of the order of £33 and £35 for a 40-hour week.
All this firm need have done, in spite of everything said by the few speakers opposite, was to have declared these men redundant, all 20 of them, and claimed redundancy pay for them, a perfectly proper and legitimate thing to do. In the period of any dislocation caused by the "C" licence drivers not being available, it could have used British Road Services or any other long-distance haulage firm to distribute its products. Then, it could have re-engaged the same 20 men four weeks later at 34s. 6d. a week more.
By that means, the law would have been made to look an ass, as it would have been and as it is an ass in this matter. Here is an Order brought before the House to apply to 20 out of 1·3 million men of the same type and employment engaged in hundreds of thousands of firms all over the country. I warn the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour that it is utterly impossible—[Laughter.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) is sneering at. I happen to know about lorry drivers. I doubt that he does.

Mr. William Price: Mr. William Price (Rugby) rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman should sit down till I have given way. He suffers perpetually from ants in his pants.

Mr. William Price: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Gerald Nabarro: When I am ready to give way and have taught the hon. Gentleman a few Parliamentary manners.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I think it right to remind both hon. Gentlemen that there is another Prayer this evening.

Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been on my feet for two minutes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It may be too long for hon. Members opposite, who claim so frequently to represent the workers of this country. The hon. Member for Rugby does not know the sight of a worker.

Mr. William Price: Mr. William Price rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: I shall give way when I am ready to do so. All his life, the hon. Gentleman has been a journalist, dressed up in a white has never soiled his hands. He is not a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union.

Mr. Christopher Rowland: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make a sustained attack on the character of another hon. Member and not give him any right of reply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing that has happened so far has been out of order, even if it has not facilitated the progress of the business of the House.

Sir G. Nabarro: I deeply regret, as always, the time wasting activities of hon. Members opposite, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But I hope that the hon. Member for Rugby, who sits for such a highly marginal Midlands constituency, will recall, when the next General Election comes, that he is going into the Lobby tonight to frustrate a legitimate wage advance of 34s. 6d. a week for hard-working Birmingham lorry drivers, whom I represent in my philosophy and he does not. I love representing the working man, the horny-handed son of toil, whom we are debating, and whose wages we are debating.
It would be utter hypocrisy for the Parliamentary Secretary to deny that the firm could legitimately have given those men an increase of 34s. 6d. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman remaining sedentary does not even know the geography of the South Worcestershire constituency. He should come there and study the course of the River Avon.

Mr. William Price: Mr. William Price rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman came to this Chamber to make a nuisance of himself.

Mr. William Price: Mr. William Price rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) says that he smells like one, even from this distance.

Mr. William Price: Mr. William Price rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) will find that that was not an entirely proper remark and was not in accordance with our traditions in the House.

Sir G. Nabarro: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman smelled.
What I was saying to the Parliamentary Secretary was that it would be utter hypocrisy on his part to deny that the firm could perfectly legitimately have discharged the men and re-engaged them a few weeks later at a 34s. 6d. increase in pay. Does that not reveal the major Statute here as being not only inadequate, but entirely foolish and ill-conceived? If we are to have Orders brought to the


House in the interests of squashing a wage increase for just 20 men—last time it was 200—we shall presumably have, in a few weeks, a special Order to deal with the wages of one man. Is that the goal and objective of the Parliamentary Secretary?

10.42 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): Almost the last words of the hon. Member for Worcester—

Sir G. Nabarro: Worcestershire, South.

Mr. Hattersley: I obviously cannot recognise a country gentleman when I see one. [Laughter.]

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. I think that hon. Members have a right to have their constituencies correctly stated, even by a Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Hattersley: Almost the last words of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) were to pour scorn on the Order we are debating because it applied to only 20 men. Speaker after speaker opposite made the same point. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said that whether the Order applied to 20 men or 200 was irrelevant to him, which caused a great deal of amusement on the benches opposite. I hope that the same hon. Members were laughing on the evening of 13th December, when this sentiment was expressed in the House:
In my view, it is immaterial whether the number of workers affected is 30,000 as it is here, whether it is 120, … or even whether it is a single man— …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1966; Vol. 738, c. 400.]
That was the view of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), and I consider it to be altogether proper and laudable.
I hope that some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends will feel on reflection that the view he then held was more proper than the view they advanced tonight. Our job is to decide the Order's merits, not the number of men to whom it applies, and to do so, as we have been told time after time in this and other debates, in the general context of Government incomes policy.
When the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) makes a speech attacking the

Order, saying that it is the destruction of the traditional market rates and the forces of supply and demand, he expresses a view which, as I understand it, is alien not only to Government incomes policy but to the incomes policy, such as it is, of the official Opposition, and to all incomes policy as advocated by British industry and the trade unions. It is only a tiny minority of commentators on these Orders who object to them per se because they frustrate the free forces of the free market. When the hon. Member reminded my hon. Friends that they should support him or should abstain, I hope that he will understand that although they might do this they would not do it in the interests of the free market and the free movement of prices and wages.
I will turn to the substantial and detailed speech of the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and to some of the questions he properly asked. I hope that many of them can be dealt with when I come to the chonology of the Order, the Government's reasons for making it and the Government's intentions for the future of the Order.
The first substantial point he made was that only a small number of cases have come before this House. Only a small number of Orders have been made and Prayers put down against them. He asked whether the Orders were relevant to the general strategy of the Government's incomes policy. He said that only a small number of wage increases have been the subject of Orders.
I am sure he knows that wage movements since 20th July, 1966, have been remarkably small. The reason is not the freeze. We have had a freeze on previous occasions, for example in the early sixties and mid-fifties. In spite of the recessions then, wage increases went on. This is the only occasion when wage movements have been confined, and they have been confined because of the incomes policy and largely because of voluntary compliance with it. Where voluntary compliance was not possible, an Order has been made.

Mr. Biffen: I do not want to tempt the Parliamentary Secretary outside the bounds of Order, but if he is going to sustain his argument that on this occasion movements of wage and salary earnings have been more restricted than they were in periods after the action of my


right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, will he be so kind as to publish these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT, particularly the figures for salary earnings?

Mr. Hattersley: I suggest that the hon. Member, who is kind enough to acknowledge the difficulties surrounding this debate, puts down a Question asking for the figures for any period of his choice. When he studies the answer he will find that the position I have outlined is true. The unique thing about the recent period is that it has been one of economic constraint associated with a conscious policy of wage limitation. This is what distinguishes it from previous economic crises of similar origins.
I can confirm, as I almost invariably can when the hon. Member for Worthing moves the Prayer, that the facts he outlined are correct, although this evening he made two slight errors which are material and germane to the case. He said that the men concerned had a basic wage of £14 15s. 6d. My information is that the basic wage is £1 more than that. I make that point, not because I want to pick the hon. Member up on details, but because this wage could not put them by any conceivable standard in the class of lowest paid workers. The most exacting criteria for lowest paid workers suggest that £15 a week is the dividing line.
These men applied on 13th December for a substantial increase in their minimum wage, a broad, substantial increase in their average earnings, which in the recent past have been rather more than £21 a week. They wanted an increase of £1 14s. 6d., which was rather more than 10 per cent of their basic earnings. They wanted a reduction in their working hours from 42 to 40 a week, which is the equivalent to an improvement in remuneration of 5 per cent. So on 13th December—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: How many hours' overtime did they have to work to arrive at that average of just over £20 a week?

Mr. Hattersley: The figure for overtime is something like 12 hours a week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The figure is clear, it is obvious, and it in no way

invalidates the proposition I am making. Their basic wage was in excess of what anyone can regard as that of the lowest paid worker. Their application was for an increase which in terms of extra money and a shorter working week amounted to an improvement in remuneration of something like 15 per cent., by any standard a substantial increase, and an increase which was far outside the norms laid down by Government policy.
I think that again, as a fortnight ago, it is important to remember that these applications for increases in wages and reductions of the working week were made on 13th December, after the publication of the White Paper on the Standstill, after the publication of the White Paper on the Period of Severe Restraint, and I have no doubt at all that the Transport and General Workers Union, described by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) as one of the defenceless groups in the country against whom the Government were mounting an attack, knew very well that the claim was and would be a breach of the incomes policy. I have no doubt at all that the Transport and General Workers Union said, "This is a breach of the incomes policy, but we go ahead with it nevertheless." The argument has been advanced in the House that some breaches of the incomes policy have been made by mistake, but I have no doubt at all that on this occasion it was made intentionally and deliberately.
I must ask the hon. Member for Worthing the question which I have asked him and his colleagues on their Front Bench every time we have debated Orders like this. In that situation, assuming that they had an incomes policy at all, as I am constantly told they would have and once had, what would they have done? Would they at that point have said, "The incomes policy is only for the nonmilitant. The incomes policy is only for the voluntarily co-operative. The incomes policy is only for those who choose to comply, and anyone who does not comply may escape"? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of telling us what, in the face of this straightforward, obvious and overt challenge, he would have done in those circumstances.
The Government's attitude was clear and precise. Our obligation to our policy was to make an Order under Section 29 of the Prices and Incomes Act, and this had special significance in this case for the reasons which I want to outline.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the Order covered both the proposed increases in wages and the proposed reduction in the working week. There is no doubt at all that the Order covers both. There is equally, I think, no doubt at all that the existence of the prices and incomes policy and the existence of the reserve powers was not a contributory factor in the sort of industrial relations which operated in the firm between 13th December and the early weeks of January. The hon. Gentleman has put it to the House that the knowledge that the Government would intervene might in itself have encouraged the union to take action more precipitate than it would have chosen to do had it been able to negotiate freely without the reserve powers being there hanging over their heads. The union knew, I reiterate; it had read the Government's documents and could understand that paragraph 24 of the Standstill White Paper urged management and men to go on negotiating in the usual way. The incomes policy in no way precludes traditional negotiations—indeed, it encourages them—but only reminds the parities that the negotiations should be carried out in the light of the existence of the incomes policy.
Notwithstanding that, the rather precipitate step was taken by the union which produced a strike on 2nd January. Again I ask the hon. Member for Worthing what alternative he thinks the Government have in such a situation. Until then, the incomes policy is still voluntary. Until that moment, the company and the men are being urged voluntarily to accept wage limitation. It is not until industrial action is taken to make sure that the company refuses to accept the voluntary implications of the policy that the Order is made.
The Order was made to cover both sections of the new agreement—the increase in wages and the reduction in the working week. Clearly, the Order in relation to the wage increase must continue to operate until Part IV of the Act lapses on 11th August. The hon. Gentleman

asked whether it was the Government's intention to "claw back", as he described it, the increase the men had obtained in excess of the incomes policy norm between the time the Order became operative and the time when the new rate was first paid.
I take issue with him on his term "claw back". I understand the necessity for the Opposition to describe Government policy in pejorative terms, but I would put it another way. The Government say that their obligation is to hold the incomes policy line to make sure that no body of men by militant action, by greater determination to flout the policy, obtain advantages over those who have accepted the policy voluntarily. Therefore, it is clearly Government policy to make sure that any increase obtained in excess of that policy is compensated for by a period of forced restraint, Thus, if the hon. Gentleman's question is whether the Government are equating the period of excess payment with the period during which the Order is in operation, the answer is, usually, "yes".
That is the only point which needs to be made about the increase in wages. There is a point of some substance about the proposed working week reduction. The hon. Gentleman was a little wrong in saying that the company had had to accept all the union's demands because fear of the incomes policy encouraged the men to insist on the acceptance of all their demands. I understand that the union originally asked for a two-hour reduction in the working week and finally accepted a reduction of one hour.
The important point here is that there may well be a claim that the Road Haulage Wages Act, 1938, which, before 20th July—the significant date—gave road haulage drivers of "A and B" licence vehicles a reduced working week by a Wages Regulation Order, applied to these men as well. Therefore they may be adjudged to have a statutory right to a reduced working week if they apply to the Industrial Court for the appropriate order on the ground that their working week should be reduced by one hour.
It may well be that the union will decide to take that claim to the Industrial Court and ask for a reduction in the working week of these men. I therefore make it clear that although, as it stands,


the Order covers the reduction in the working week, if the union took that course and the Court ruled that the Wages Regulation Order should apply to these men as well and that their working week should therefore be reduced, my right hon. Friend would contemplate using his powers under Section 29(4,a) of the Act and notifying the management that, within the terms of the incomes policy, the working week could be reduced.

Mr. Higgins: Would not this action that the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Minister may contemplate be totally in conflict with the whole of the incomes policy so far, which has been to divide on a purely arbitrary line and say that if an amount has not been paid by a certain date it is beyond the pale? Surely such a course would be wholly inconsistent. It would also be totally unfair on everyone else affected by these Orders.

Mr. Hattersley: This is an involved point and perhaps I have not made it clear. The Wages Regulation Order for a reduced working week came into operation before 20th July. Had such an arrangement been made in this case before that date, it could have continued to operate. But the union did not take recourse, as it might have done, to the Industrial Court before 20th July, and it may well be—I cannot prejudge the decision of the Court—that these men are not receiving the reduced working week to which they may have been entitled even before 20th July. Since their entitlement, if it exists, is a pre-July entitlement we will consider letting it go ahead and allowing it to be reduced.
It has been suggested that in some ways there is a productivity element in this bargain and that it should have been allowed to go through on the basis that the men had agreed, for their increase in wages, to do more work, to carry more loads and do extra hours. The information that we have is that certainly no such element exists. Equally our information is quite contrary to that offered by the hon. Member for Worthing when he suggested that the reduced working week is being implemented and the increased remuneration is being paid against the Government's instructions and against the decision of the Government. This is totally false.
It is totally false, because our experience, even with those unions and managements

who disagree with the principles of an incomes policy, is that they are prepared to co-operate with the Government when the policy is put into operation in this way. That is why I very much deplore those pejorative things said about the Crown Bedding Company when it was suggested that it had made a mistake in notifying the Government that the increase was contemplated. It had no legal requirement, but it had a requirement in terms of the public interest. We have made it clear that we expect firms to respond to the public interest far beyond the stipulated legal limit, and I am happy to say that on most occasions most firms have been far more ready to respond to the public interest than many hon. Gentlemen this evening.

Sir G. Nabarro: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has used the word "pejorative" four times this evening. What does it mean? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain this?

Mr. Hattersley: I am glad to contribute to the hon. Gentleman's education. "Pejorative" means an argument so constructed as to cast a matter in its worst possible light, and this seems to be an admirable description of the performance given by the hon. Gentleman this evening.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: If I may speak again, with the leave of the House, and reply briefly to the Junior Parliamentary Secretary. It might be convenient if I said that we do not propose to move the second Order standing on the Notice Paper because it would not be possible to debate it adequately. We do propose to put it down for debate on a later occasion, when it is possible to debate the matter fully.
What is becoming abundantly clear is that each of these Orders is attracting an increasing amount of interest. This is the largest House we have had at the termination of such an Order. It is right and proper that the House should have an opportunity of debating them at length and going into them in detail. I would certainly be among those who feel that whether these Orders cover one person, 100 persons, 1.000 persons or the entire population, the important thing is that we should be concerned with the points of principle involved, because this Order


and others like it strike at the very foundations of our political society.

Mr. Peyton: Will my hon. Friend particularly challenge the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on what he has said about firms conducting themselves within the spirit and letter of the White Paper?

Mr. Higgins: I would be glad to do so, because one of the unfortunate implications of this policy has been that instead of relying on legislation which is debated in this House, the Government rely on intimidation, by relying on what they interpret as the spirit of their own policy. This is a fundamental matter, which we on this side, and I hope hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House, would rightly regard as one of great importance.
As far as the Parliamentary Secretary's questions are concerned, I certainly would not attempt to defend what I would do in the absurd position in which the Government have now got themselves into. I do not feel called upon to do this at all. That is up to the Government.
Perhaps I might take up a point that was raised earlier in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), which is that, as far as this policy is concerned, we voted against the principal Bill, which this Order comes under, on Second Reading on a reasoned Amendment. Thereafter, once Part IV and the element of compulsion had been introduced into the Government's policy, we opposed it root and branch right through the Committee stage, through the Third Reading, and we have continued to do so on all of these Orders.
We really cannot accept what the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting this evening that the stabilisation which is taking place has been due to the compulsory element of the Government's prices and incomes policy. We accept that it may have been due to the element of intimidation which has resulted from that compulsory element, but we also feel that it has a great deal to do with

the fact that, as is said in their own White Paper, excess demand in the economy has been eliminated, with all that that means in terms of stagnation, lack of economic growth and the fall of investment on which we rely for our future growth.

I find the sudden weakening in the rigid front which the Government have hitherto adopted with regard to the actual date line on which claims shall or shall not be accepted a very interesting development indeed. We shall study with interest what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and we shall consider carefully the implications of this for all the people who have been affected by the previous prices and incomes Orders.

Overall, I do not think there is the slightest doubt that this Order, like the previous ones that have gone before, is entirely reprehensible. For that reason, I hope my hon. Friends will join me in opposing this Order this evening.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: May I say a few words to the Parliamentary Secretary following upon what my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said. I have great respect for him, but does he really think it is right to say that every person in this country has a duty to read every White Paper that is published and act accordingly? This is an extraordinary extension of the fiction that every man shall presume to know the law. As a lawyer, I have always thought that to be pretty dotty, but this is a great extension of that suggestion—that every man shall presume to know everything in every White Paper.
On reflection, I think the hon. Gentleman will regret that remark, and, if for no other reason, I hope that we shall vote in large numbers against this Order.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 158.

Division No. 305.]
AYES
[11.8 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Carlisle, Mark


Awdry, Daniel
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Channon, H. P. G.


Baker, W. H. K.
Braine, Bernard
Chichester-Clark, R.


Batsford, Brian
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Clegg, Walter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cooke, Robert


Bessell, peter
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Costain, A. P.


Biffen, John
Bryan, Paul
Crawley, Aidan


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Campell, Gordon
Dalkeith, Earl of




Dance, James
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Peyton, John


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jopling, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pounder, Rafton


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Francis


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kimball, Marcus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Doughty, Charles
Kitson, Timothy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lambton, Viscount
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Royle, Anthony


Errington, Sir Eric
Longden, Gilbert
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveys, W. H.
Sharpies, Richard


Gibson-Watt, David
Lubbock, Eric
Sinclair, Sir George


Grimour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, John


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Glover, Sir Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Summers, Sir Spencer


Grant, Anthony
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Grant-Ferris, R,
Maginnis, John E.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
May don, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L, C.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
More, Jasper
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Worsley, Marcus


Higgins, Terence L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wright, Esmond


Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Hill, J. E. B.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clithsroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Iremonger, T. L.
Peel, John
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Floud, Bernard
Murray, Albert


Allen, Scholefield
Foley, Maurice
Oakes, Gordon


Anderson, Donald
Ford, Ben
Ogden, Eric


Archer, Peter
Forrester, John
O'Malley, Brian


Armstrong, Ernest
Fowler, Gerry
Oram, Albert E.


Ashley, Jack
Gourlay, Harry
Oswald, Thomas


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gregory, Arnold
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Owen, will (Morpeth)


Barnes, Michael
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Padley, Walter


Barnett, Joel
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pavitt, Laurence


Baxter, William
Hannan, William
Pentland, Norman


Beaney, Alan
Harper, Joseph
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Bence, Cyril
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Haseldine, Norman
Price, William (Rugby)


Binns, John
Hattertley, Roy
Rees, Merlyn


Blackburn, F.
Henig, Stanley
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Richard, Ivor


Boardman, H.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boyden, James
Howie, W.
Roberts, Gwllym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hoy, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, L.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)



Hunter, Adam
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hynd, John
Rose, Paul


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Coe, Denis
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Robert


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'e'tle-u-Tyne)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, T. A. (Rhondda West)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tarn
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kenyon, Clifford
Small, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Snow, Julian


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lomas, Kenneth
Thornton, Ernest


Dell, Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dewar, Donald
McBride, Neil
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dobson, Ray
Mackie, John
Whitaker, Ben


Doig, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.
Whitlcck, William


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Wilkins, W. A.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Macphereon, Malcolm
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Eadie, Alex
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Manuel, Archie
Winterbottom, R. E.


English, Michael
Mapp, Charles
Woortburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Ennals, David
Marquand, David
Woof, Robert


Ensor, David
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Yates, Victor


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Maxwell, Robert



Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Harold Walker.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, John (Aberavon)

Orders of the Day — BRACKLEY SQUARE, WOODFORD GREEN (FLOODING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am glad of the opportunity of raising a matter which is causing increasing distress to hundreds of my constituents near the River Roding, which flows through Wanstead and Woodford. The land affected by frequent flooding comprises an estate of about 280 owner-occupied houses, about half of which are seriously affected. The estate lies to the south and west of the junction of two roads, Snakes Lane and Chigwell Road. The houses were built between 1935 and 1939 by a private developer, who sold to owner-occupiers, many of whom are still living in the houses.
The land lies at the bottom of the Roding Valley and has always been recognised as liable to a flood risk, but, in the early years, solely from the River Roding. In 1928, the then Woodford authority drew up a planning scheme under which the land was zoned for business use, because it was considered unsuitable for housing. However, in 1935 the builder applied to build the houses. His application was rejected by the council. His appeal to the Ministry of Health was allowed and he was allowed to develop the land for residential purposes. However, the council made a byelaw and established a datum line, with the result that the houses and the access roads had to be built on land made up to a depth of five or six feet above the natural level of the ground.
I should like to make it clear that it is not the houses or the access roads which are subject to flooding, but the remainder of the land, comprising the gardens, many with garages on them and in some cases with rear access lanes running behind the houses. These all remain at the original level and are becoming subject increasingly to flooding.
In the early years, there were two forms of flooding which affected the land. From time to time, the River Roding overflowed its banks and flooded the land to a considerable depth. In 1947, the river burst its banks, and no doubt the

hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson), whom I see in his place, will remember the occasion vividly. The gardens in question were flooded, many of them up to six feet in depth, to the top of the steps which lead up from the gardens to the houses. In the following years, the then catchment board straightened the river and raised the banks. As a result, river flooding is no longer a problem.
The second sort of flooding comes from the level of the water table. Whenever there were heavy rains, some lasting a week or more, the water table appeared above the level of the ground by a few inches. However, as soon as the rain stopped, the flooding quickly subsided, and this, however tiresome for the residents, was of no serious concern.
After the war, there was a good deal of development in the area all round the estate in question. Immediately after the war, a council estate was built to the west of the estate we are discussing, on land that again was built up by five or six feet above the natural level. At the same time, a ditch which separated the council estate from the buildings which we are considering was culverted and filled in.
That was followed a few years later by the systematic draining of the Woodford Football Club's ground, and that involved two attempts, one in 1946 and one in 1957. I am informed by the Council that it was all drained into the main sewerage system, and it is unable to understand how it can have affected the problem.
Then there was a field to the east, between the River Roding and the Chigwell Road. There, the level was again raised by dumping rubbish and laying earth on top. Another ditch which hitherto carried away surface water to the river was culverted and filled in.
Finally, about four years ago, a row of dilapidated old cottages was pulled down, and flats were built on the corner of Snakes Lane and Chigwell Road. During the building, there was some difficulty with the level of water. The builders laid an asphalted area which broke up, apparently because of damp, and had to be relaid.
The residents assert and are in no doubt that the increasing flooding problem to which they are now subject is


the cumulative effect of all the development which has gone on round their own estate. I accept the evidence, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will, too, that although no readily available explanation has been forthcoming, the situation has deteriorated markedly in the last four years. Before then, it required five to seven days of heavy continuous rain before the water level came above the ground level. Now it happens whenever there is a full day of moderate rain. Formerly, it was only an occasional nuisance. Now, the flooding is frequent and persistent, and some gardens are almost permanently waterlogged. Formerly, it drained away within two to three days of the rain stopping. Now, it seems to last over a week and sometimes ten days, giving rise to pools of stagnant water which emit unpleasant smells.
The change was highlighted for use by one lady to whom I talked during the course of my investigations. She said that before and just after the war her children used to play regularly in her garden, but her grandchildren are almost never able to do so because of the state of the ground.
There are other ills which flow from this. There is increased evidence of rats, and though the residents are very appreciative of the efforts of the council's rodent operatives, they nevertheless feel that this is a consequence of the flooding. One family woke up one morning to find wild ducks swimming all over the lawn. In these circumstances, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that gardening becomes quite impossible. The soil is washed away from the roots of plants, one's bulbs rot, and it is impossible to maintain anything in the way of a lawn.
Families need to put on gumboots to wade out to their garages, and housewives are unable to hang out washing because they cannot put their baskets on the ground. Others who have to get coal from their coal bunkers take the coal from the top because they cannot shovel it out from under the water at the bottom. The situation has now been reached that from being an occasional irritant, it is becoming a serious menace to amenity, and a potential threat to health, and those who think they can remedy the situation by moving out find that it is becoming increasingly

difficult to dispose of their houses at an acceptable price.
In those circumstances, it is not surprising that complaints have become increasingly vociferous. In 1962 the residents complained to the then Wanstead and Woodford Council, which expressed the view that it had no responsibility in the matter, and took no action. Complaints continued to multiply, until last year a petition was got up. It was addressed to myself, and was signed by the occupants of more than 120 of the houses which are worst affected by this flooding.
I first sent the matter to the London Borough of Redbridge, which is the successor to the Wanstead and Woodford Council, and I would like to put on record that at all stages I found the officers of the council most helpful, and indeed most sympathetic, but the council decided it was not its responsibility. It defined the cause as being the high level of the water table. The council felt that no responsibility rested on it, and advised the residents to raise the level of their gardens.
At this stage it is right to point out briefly that under existing planning laws these houses would probably never have been built without the whole ground being raised, but under the legislation as it was before the war this was not considered necessary, and perhaps the problem all stems from that.
At that point I wrote to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, as it seemed to be a matter falling within that Ministry's responsibility, but I was told by the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, as he then was, that this was a matter of land drainage and not sewerage, and was the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, and I am delighted and grateful that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is here this evening to reply to this debate.
The Minister replied to my letter and said that the problem was caused by the impervious nature of the soil, that is to say, this was surface water which was not percolating through the soil in the normal way. In other words, this was a different explanation from that offered by the council. The Minister said that it was up to the local council to use the powers it had to remedy the situation, and therefore I was back to square one.
I then asked the Redbridge Council what powers the Minister was referring to, and I was told that there were three powers under the Land Drainage Acts of 1930 and 1961. The first power was that of being able to complain to the Minister. Clearly this was not going to be of much help. The second power was itself to undertake works which ought to be carried out by the drainage boards. The third power was to make a financial contribution to the drainage boards.
It is the second power which seems to be the relevant one. Under Section 34 of the Land Drainage Act, 1961, the Roding lies in the catchment area which is administered by the Essex River Authority which has its headquarters at Chelmsford, but the attitude of the Redbridge Council in relation to Section 34 was that it could not claim that the Essex River Authority had fallen down on its duty, and that there was nothing which would give rise to a justification for a complaint under that section.
I must say that the river authority has taken a somewhat unsympathetic view. It has placed the whole of the blame on the original and what it describes as the ill-advised development—and this could well be. It points out that the roads and houses are well above the normal level of the river, that it has carried out river improvements, and that the problem was, to use the same words as were used by the hon. Gentleman in his letter—or they implied the same meaning—that the soil was impermeable. It was, in the view of the river authority, a matter of surface drainage, and was therefore one for the local authority to deal with and not one for the river authority. Thus, this is nobody's baby. There the matter stands, and that is why I have been driven to raising the matter in the House this evening.
The points at issue seem to be these. First, nobody is able to offer any acceptable explanation of why this problem should have got so much worse in the last three or four years. The residents blame the development—the filling in of ditches, and the other measures I have described—and the local authority does not feel able to confirm or deny that to be the case. Second, there is the dispute as to the cause of the flooding. The council says that it is the water table,

and therefore the responsibility of the river authority. The river authority and the Minister say that it is the impervious soil, and that the problem is one of surface water and therefore a matter for the local authority. The attitude of the borough engineer of the local authority is that the soil is not impervious—it is not clay, but alluvial soil—and it is difficult to see how that argument can stand on its feet.
The third issue is the only remedy so far suggested, namely, that the residents should raise the level of the gardens by building them up. This involves extreme difficulties for the residents. First, if some of them do it—and some could, and some have—it has the immediate effect of making the situation worse for their next-door neighbours. There is ample evidence of this even in individual gardens, where residents who have raised the level of the flower beds have found that it has increased flooding of the lawn. The borough engineer, from whom emanated the original suggestion, admitted in a subsequent letter that if some residents were to do it and not others it would make matters worse for those who did not.
Many of the householders would be unable to meet the cost of this work, which would be something between £50 and £100 per garden, and many of them are too aged and infirm to do-it-yourself. When I point out that some of the houses are in terraces of four or six houses, that one man managed to do the work by carrying buckets of earth from the front, and taking it right through the house in order to dump it at the back, and that it took him some months, while another man took two years to do it, the Parliamentary Secretary may realise that that solution is not really practicable, and I hope that he will not suggest it this evening.
The result is a very unsatisfactory and deteriorating situation with, so far, a complete denial of responsibility by all the relevant authorities. This is a case where the Minister is bound to inter vene and to initiate action. Under Section 81 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, there is no doubt that it is the Minister of Agriculture who is the Minister responsible for land drainage. Secondly, land drainage is a function that was transferred to the river authorities


set up under the Water Resources Act, 1963.
There is no doubt that under the land drainage Acts of 1930 and 1961 these drainage authorities have ample powers to carry out work necessary to improve the drainage of any land within their areas. Furthermore, under Section 107 of the 1963 Water Resources Act the Minister has power to give directions to drainage authorities to carry out works which appear to him to be necessary. In the last resort, under Section 108 he has reserve powers—what one might call default powers—to carry out works himself. There appears no doubt, therefore, that the Minister has both the overall responsiblity for the matter and full powers to act.
What do I suggest the Minister should do? In the first place, what seems to be required is a hydrological survey. The causes of the flooding and the remedies seem matters of doubt, and cannot be determined unless a proper hydrological survey of the area is carried out. That is a matter for the river authority, and if the river authority will not do the work without being directed, it must be directed. If the fault lies in the water table having risen in the last few years as a result of development, it is the responsibility of the river authority to do something to make life habitable once again for these people. This could be done perhaps by deepening the River Roding. That has been done already and could perhaps be done again, or other measures could be taken to lower the level to what it was before. I drew attention to Section 30 of the Land Drainage Act, which gives power for such small schemes to be under taken in such areas.
If all that is impracticable and the only measure which could be taken to alleviate the problem is to raise the levels of the gulleys, it is up to the local authority to work out a scheme whereby this could be done on a collective basis with the cost shared by the local authority, the river authority and residents. Those residents with whom I have spoken recognise that those who could afford it could co-operate—and this is the majority—in making a contribution. But it is quite unrealistic and impossible to expect only residents on an estate of this sort to undertake the work themselves without the support of the authorities. This is

the Minister's responsibility and he cannot shuffle it off.
These conditions are already serious and year by year they are becoming intolerable. They are making life increasingly a misery for hundreds of my constituents. These people for the most part have limited means. They look to the elected authorities for help in their problems.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. W. o. J. Robinson: I intervene in this debate because for 13 years I represented in the council the area of which Brackley Square forms a part. I confirm much of what has been said by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) about the intolerable conditions in the area. I would have doubted whether it is completely accurate to say that the conditions have worsened in the last four or five years, but it is clear that the responsibility for these conditions is that the land was allowed to be built on. Those who knew the area at the time were astounded that any development should have been allowed on that land without proper site preparation being made to avoid flooding.
Such preparation was possible because the local authority developed on the land and its development has not been menaced by flooding. The primary responsibility was with the developers and with the local authority for not properly supervising the foundations of buildings on the site. However, we have not to cavil over responsibility in the past but to see what can be done to help unfortunate occupiers of these premises. Notwithstanding what responsibility may rest elsewhere, I hope that the Ministry, whose responsibility this is, may assist. I was attracted by the idea that a share of the cost should be borne by a tripartite arrangement, for it would be unfair to expect public funds to be expended to meet the total cost of remedial works. This should rest, in part at least, on the owners and occupiers. I join with the hon. Member in asking that something should be done to relieve their difficulties.

11.40 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford


(Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) have put the case for their constituents very clearly, and I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the constitutional position, which is very complex. I fully appreciate the concern of hon. Members for the problem of the flooding of these gardens. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford has painted a fairly grim picture of children not being able to play and of bulbs rotting and so on, and I can appreciate how his constituents feel about this problem which is clearly a major nuisance to them.
In brief, the problem is how the situation can be remedied and who should pay for it. Those are the two issues. The hon. Gentleman pinpointed the problem. The gardens affected lie between the River Roding and the higher ground to the west. They are in an area which forms a natural basin not only for rainwater falling directly on it, but for water draining from higher land. It is maintained that the position has become worse in the last few years. It is difficult to understand why that should be so, although we know that development can create drainage problems. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, most of the water has been drained into the sewers and it is difficult to understand why the problem should arise. I am nevertheless prepared to accept that it does.
The hon. Gentleman used the word "flooding". We know that there was flooding in 1946 and that the banks of the river were raised in 1947 to prevent what is generally accepted as flooding. However, this seems to be a slightly different situation. The hon. Gentleman said that after a day's rain one could see surface water running into gardens around the ends of houses, or staying on the surface because the land was impervious and always soggy because the rainwater could not get away.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a hydrological survey. The council has already made offers of help in the raising of the gardens and I am sure that my Department will help in having a look at the situation, if there is something which has happened since we last looked and about which we do not now know, to see whether something can be done.
As the hon. Gentleman said, because of the situation which it knew to exist, the council refused permission in 1934 for building on this site, but that permission was ultimately given by the Minister of Health, although byelaws provided that the houses, but not their gardens, had to be above flood level. It might seem that there is no technical difficulty in dealing with this problem, other than the difficulty of carrying bucketfuls or barrowfuls of earth through houses which have no side access from front to rear. The technical problem of raising the surface level is quite simple, if it can be done cheaply. In this case, however, it might cost quite a lot and that might not prove to be effective. The effective way, of course, would be to pipe the water away, but such a scheme might prove to be very expensive, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
This brings us to the crux of the matter, which is who should be responsible not only for undertaking, but, more important, for paying for the remedial work. The River Roding, which lies close to these properties, is a "main river" of the Essex River Authority but there is no record of the river overflowing since 1947. Therefore, this does not seem to be in any sense an arterial drainage problem within the responsibility of the river authority. The hon. Gentleman has not insisted that it should be so regarded and he appreciates that the problem is one of surface draining.
The Redbridge Council has power, under Section 34 of the Land Drainage Act, 1961, to undertake drainage works to prevent flooding or to remedy or mitigate damage from flooding, and the Minister of Agriculture has power under Section 15 of the Agriculture Act, 1937, to pay grant of up to 50 per cent. of the cost of drainage schemes submitted by the council. The hon. Gentleman quoted from various Acts about powers to complain, but I think that every Act allows every citizen the power to complain about things. However, both the power to undertake works and the power to grant aid are discretionary. As the hon. Gentleman knows, all river authorities are autonomous bodies and I am advised that there is considerable doubt about whether raising the level of the gardens above the flood line would constitute a drainage work within the terms of this legislation. As regards payment of grant,


the Minister would consider on its merits any proposal put to him by a council, provided that he was satisfied that it fell within the terms of the legislation. But he would approve a scheme for grant only if it met our criteria for land drainage schemes, including the criteria of technical soundness, and, in particular, if it could be shown that the expenditure was justified by the benefit to be derived from the works. We have always to observe these criteria, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
The residents in these properties petitioned the Redbridge Council last year to take remedial measures—I have a copy of the petition here, and I have had correspondence with the hon. Gentleman about it—but the council declined to assume responsibility for any remedial work, although it did offer the help of its surveyor in advising on levels and on obtaining materials if the residents themselves wished to raise the level of their gardens. We have already mentioned this, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it would be rather expensive, particularly for old people, in this area which, I understand, is not a particularly wealthy one.
As the hon. Gentleman has made clear, the suggestions which have been made so far have not satisfied the owners and occupiers of the houses, and this is why we are debating the matter tonight. I am sorry to say that I have little comfort to offer on the subject. Parliament

has advisedly conferred complete discretion in this matter on the local authorities, which must determine for themselves whether it is appropriate to require their ratepayers to pay for works to alleviate this kind of problem. It is not a matter in which the Minister can or should intervene. In spite of what the hon. Gentleman said about the powers of the Minister, I must emphasise that we cannot intervene in these matters. The river and other authorities are autonomous bodies. Local councils, as the hon. Gentleman knows, do not like interference from Ministers, and we really do not have the power to intervene.
Nevertheless, we appreciate the nature and extent of the problem. It is about a year now since our technical people looked at it. The hon. Gentleman has raised certain new points, particularly the suggestion that things have got worse in the last few years, which, perhaps, cast new light on the matter. I think that, with the help of the council's advice and the advice of some of our technical people, we might look at this rather difficult problem again.

The Question having been proposed after half-past Nine o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.